THE  ARVNDEL  LIBRARY 


SANDRO 

BOTTICELLI 


OF  GREAT  MASTERS 


PSSHRIIMI 


759.  5 


B65.9  a 


OF  THL 

U N I V L R.S  ITY 
<Of  ILLINOIS 


/./  , ^ 

. ^ 


THE  ARUNDEL  LIBRARY 
OF  GREAT  MASTERS 


The  ^Arundel  Library  of  Qreat  Masters 

ANTHONY  VAN  DYCK.  A Further  Study  by 
Lionel  Cust 

SANDRO  BOTTICELLI.  By  Adolf  Paul  Oppe 


LONDON:  HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

BY  ADOLF  PAUL  OPPE 

WITH  TWENTY-FIVE  PLATES  IN  COLOUR 
SELECTED  AND  EXECUTED  UNDER  THE 
SUPERVISION  OF  THE  MEDICI  SOCIETY 


HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON:  PUBLISHERS 
LONDON  AND  NEW  YORK 


, batch ELWh 


I ^ 

1 O 1 o 

. - OP  (Ji 

Bf-olc 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

Besides  acknowledging  my  general  indebtedness  to 
Mr.  Horne  for  the  amount  that  I have  derived,  in 
statements  of  fact,  from  his  exhaustive  book  on 
Botticelli,  I have  to  thank  him  for  his  kindness  to  me 
in  Florence.  Among  other  benefits,  I owe  to  him  a 
visit,  made  in  his  company,  to  the  Annunciation  which 
he  discovered  in  the  chapel  of  the  Corrigendi.  From 
my  conversations  with  him  I anticipate  that  he  will 
show  more  indulgence  than  others  who  know  less 
about  Botticelli  to  my  dissent  in  certain  points  from 
the  conclusions  at  which  he  himself  has  arrived.  The 
purpose  of  the  book  being  to  estimate  the  work  of 
^Botticelli  as  far  as  possible  as  a contemporary  fact,  I 
have  not  elaborated  these  points  of  difference  ; the  chief 
of  which  in  its  effect  upon  my  view  of  Botticelli  is 
that  I attach  greater  importance  to  certain  of  the  later 
pictures  which  are  generally  neglected  as  being  mere 
products  of  his  school. 

I owe  thanks  also  to  my  friend  and  colleague 
Mr.  Eric  Maclagan  for  criticism,  as  charitable  as  it  was 
valuable,  when  the  Introduction  was  in  proof.  I am 
only  partially  responsible  for  the  selection  of  the  plates. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PACE 

THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI  . . . . i 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  PAGAN  WORLD  . . . . . .20 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD  . . . . .30 

CHAPTER  IV 

BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER  . . . . .47 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI  . .64 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


I.  Judith. 

Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  1156. 


II.  Portrait  of  a Man  with  a Medal. 
Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  1154. 

III.  St.  Sebastian. 

Berlin,  No.  1128. 


IV.  St.  Augustine. 

Florence,  Ognissanti. 


V.  The  Spring. 

Florence,  Academy. 

VI.  The  Adoration  of  the  Magi. 
Florence,  Uffizi. 


VII.  The  Madonna  of  the  Magnificat. 
Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  1267  his. 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


VIII.  Holy  Family  and  Saints. 

Berlin,  No.  io6. 

IX.  Virgin  and  Child  with  Angels  and  Saints. 

Florence,  Academy,  No.  85. 

X.  The  Vision  of  St.  Augustine. 

Florence,  Academy,  No.  162. 

XI.  Portrait  of  a Young  Man. 

London,  National  Gallery,  No.  626. 

/ 

XII.  Mars  and  Venus. 

London,  National  Gallery,  No.  915. 


XIII.  Giovanna  Tornabuoni  with  Venus  and  the  Three  Graces. 
Paris,  Louvre,  No.  1297. 


XIV.  Portrait  of  a Lady. 
Florence,  Pitti. 

XV.  The  Birth  of  Venus. 

Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  39. 

XVI.  Calumny. 

Florence,  Uffizi. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


XVII.  Pallas  and  the  Centaur. 

Florence,  Pitti  Palace  (Royal  Apartments). 

XVIII.  The  Madonna  of  the  Pomegranate. 

Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  1289. 

XIX.  The  Annunciation. 

Florence,  Uffizi,  No.  1316. 

XX.  The  Virgin  and  Child. 

Milan,  Ambrosiana,  Room  D,  No.  15. 


XXI.  The  Nativity. 

London,  National  Gallery,  No.  1034. 


WORKS  WRONGLY  ASCRIBED  TO  BOTTICELLI 

XXII.  Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  John. 

Paris,  Louvre,  No.  1296. 


XXIII.  Madonna,  Child,  St.  John  Baptist  and  an  Angel. 
London,  National  Gallery,  No.  275. 

XXIV.  Portrait  of  a Woman. 

Berlin,  No.  io6a. 

XXV.  Tobit  and  the  Archangels. 

Florence,  Academy. 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 

Thanks,  no  doubt,  to  the  strongly  marked  indi- 
viduality of  his  work,  the  list  of  Botticelli’s  pictures 
has  better  authority  than  have  those  of  most 
painters  of  his  date.  There  are  two  almost  contemporary 
lists  which  show  that  most  of  the  important  works  now 
assigned  to  him  were  known  to  be  his  at  an  early  date. 
Vasari  has  little  to  add  to  these  lists,  and  the  obscurity  into 
which  Botticelli  fell  soon  after  Vasari’s  date  prevented,  in 
his  case,  until  recent  years  the  accumulation  of  doubtful 
pictures  which  generally  has  gathered  round  the  names  of 
more  famous  artists. 

Possibly  the  same  individuality  of  character  has  ensured 
that  the  traditional  account  of  Botticelli’s  life  is  equally 
trustworthy  in  its  general  lines,  and  certainly  the  same  ob- 
scurity during  several  centuries  has  prevented  the  accre- 
tion of  picturesque  and  unreliable  legends.  But,  though 
this  may  be  true  of  the  general  lines  of  his  story,  the  cer- 
tainty with  regard  to  his  pictures  is  not  equalled  in  the 
details  of  his  life.  Vasari  is  our  only  authority,  and,  though 
without  his  account  we  should  know  practically  nothing 
— indeed,  were  it  not  for  him  we  should  be  so  ignorant 
of  Botticelli  that  we  should  not  even  be  able  to  piece  to- 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


gether  the  few  fragments  of  biography  which  can  be  gleaned 
from  other  sources — his  facts  are  often  wrong.  There 
are  a few  scattered  and  casual  contemporary  documents  by 
which  Vasari’s  account  can  be  checked,  and  for  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  birth  and  family  there  are  certain  ‘ De- 
nunzie’  or  ^Declarations’  made  by  his  father  or  his  brother 
for  the  purpose  of  Florentine  taxation.  These,  as  is  the 
wont  of  returns  made  to  the  tax-collector,  are  not  as  strictly 
accurate  as  they  ought  to  be,  but  they  are  the  most  authori- 
tative records  that  we  have. 

There  is  nothing  at  all  distinguished  aboutthe  circum- 
stances of  his  life.  His  father,  Mariano  Filipepi,  was  a 
tanner  who,  if  we  can  believe  his  own  statements  to  the 
tax-gatherer,  grewpoorer  and  pooreras  his  family  increased, 
until,  a few  years  after  Alessandro  was  born,  he  declared  his 
substance  to  be  nothing,  and  his  return  is  broken  off  with 
an  appeal  for  mercy.  The  actual  year  of  the  painter’s 
birth  appears  to  have  been  1444,  but  his  age  is  differently 
stated  in  these  returns.  At  the  age  of  thirteen  he  is  entered 
as  being  still  at  school,  and  as  a boy  of  delicate  health.  So 
comparatively  long  a schooling  argues  some  slightly  more 
prosperous  a home-life  than  the  former  return  to  the  tax- 
collectors  indicates,  and  indeed  thisreturnofi 45  7 enumer- 
ates quite  a considerable  list  of  property  owned  or  rented 
by  Mariano,  then  aged  sixty-five,  and  unable  to  make 
more  than  a little  by  his  trade.  He  rented  two  houses  in 
the  town,  subletting  one,  a villa  in  the  country  towards 
Fiesole,  and  a shop  on  the  other  side  of  the  Arno  where, 
with  his  brother  Jacopo,  he  exercised  his  trade.  There 


2 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


were  bad  debts  also ; possibly  recoverable  after  the  returns 
had  been  made.  But  against  this  comparative  prosperity 
there  had  to  be  set  a large  family,  consisting  of  Smeralda 
his  wife,  approximately  aged  fifty-three,  four  sons  aged 
from  thirteen  to  thirty-seven,  three  daughters  and  one 
grand-daughter. 

According  to  Mr.  Horne’s  very  plausible  suggestion, 
it  is  to  the  eldest  of  these  sons,  Giovanni,  that  the  father’s 
return  to  prosperity  was  due.  Giovanni  was  a broker, 
and  it  was  probably  he,  and  not  his  father,  who  made  the 
‘ Denunzia  ’ which  gives  all  this  information.  But  Giovanni 
appears  to  have  done  something  more  for  his  family  than 
this.  He  is  the  first  of  them  to  be  described  by  the  nick- 
name of  Botticello.  That  name  is  given  to  him  on  the 
docket  of  this  very  return,  and  the  designation  recurs 
officially  in  such  a way  as  to  suggest  that  it  belonged  en- 
tirely to  him.  It  is,  of  course,  not  known  why  this  nick- 
name was  given  to  the  broker,  and  certainly  no  likeness  to, 
or  liking  of,  the  bottle  prevented  Botticello  from  doing 
good  service  to  his  family.  So  far  did  these  services  extend 
in  the  case  of  Sandro  that  the  boy  grew  up,  and  went 
through  life,  under  his  brother’s  name.  When  not  called 
by  his  proper  name,  Sandro  di  Mariano  Filipepi,  he  is  de- 
scribed indifferently  as  ‘di  Botticello,’  as  it  were  ‘that  boy 
of  Botticello’s,’  Botticelli,  or  Botticello,  and  even  ‘dei 
Botticelli’  as  though  there  were  a family  of  the  name. 

Vasari  did  not  know  anything  about  Giovanni  Botti- 
cello. He  therefore  supposes  that  the  young  painter  gained 
his  surname,  as  did  so  many  others,  from  his  first  master, 

3 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


and  accordingly  invents  a goldsmith  called  Botticelli  with 
whom  Sandro  was  first  apprenticed.  Except  for  the  name, 
the  goldsmith  may  perhaps  not  be  entirely  a figment  of 
the  imagination.  Antonio,  the  second  of  Mariano’s  sons, 
followed  that  trade,  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  his  brother 
worked  for  some  time  with  him.  If  so,  he  would  have  early 
come  into  contact  with  pictures,  for  framing,  with  the  lay- 
ing of  gold  backgrounds,  was  part  of  Antonio’s  chief  occu- 
pation as  a goldbeater.  Documents  connect  Antonio  with 
Neri  di  Bicci,  the  chief  exponent  at  this  time  of  an  obsolete 
and  purely  ritual  form  of  art.  If  this  was  Botticelli’s 
first  initiation  into  his  art,  his  earliest  associations  must  not 
be  thought  to  lie  with  the  refinements  which  he  would 
have  found  in  such  a studio  as  Verocchio’s,  but  with  a 
retrograde  and  almost  mechanical  process  for  the  manu- 
facture of  ornaments  of  an  orthodox  but  uninspired  type. 

However  that  may  be,  Botticelli  soon  passed  into  the 
workshop  of  a true  and  great  painter.  Vasari  and  the 
earlier  authorities  alike  agree  in  giving  as  the  name  of  his 
master  Filippo  Lippi.  Possibly  this  may  be  a mere  infer- 
ence from  the  characterof his  painting,  but  this  evidence  is 
sufficient  for  us,  as  it  was  for  them.  There  is  no  record  of 
the  date  when  the  boy  entered  the  studio  of  the  master,  but 
his  work  shows  that  he  remained  there  long  enough  to 
saturate  himself  with  the  chief  features  of  his  master’s  style. 
Filippo  is  known  to  all  men  as  the  combination  of  the 
monkish  habit  and  the  irregular  life.  In  his  art  irregular 
living  appears  only  as  a passion  for  delicate  beauty,  and  so 
far  from  detracting  from  the  religious  element  of  his  work 

4 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


it  has  given  him  the  charm  which  is  the  essence  of  his 
religious  beauty.  Religious  art  might  by  itself  have  given 
Filippo  his  innocent  and  devout  conceptions,  his  subdued 
Madonnas  and  rapt  adorers — even  the  sweetness  of  colour 
and  simplicity  of  attitud^and  line  which  he  inherited  from 
the  convent  painters  Lorenzo  Monaco  and  Fra  Angelico. 
But  only  his  own  individual  love  of  thechoic^hnd  exquisite 
in  external  nature  could  have  given  him  the  poignant  force 
of  his  faces  and  attitudes  and  his  interest  in  the  varying 
movements  of  the  human  form.  The  beauty  of  women 
which  led  him  into  difficulties  with  his  monastic  vows, 
the  attraction  of  drapery  which  is  certainly  no  business  of 
a monk,  the  love  for  the  delicate  in  flower  or  tree,  archi- 
tecture or  external  nature,  which  is  allowed  as  a compensa- 
tion to  cloistered  humanity,  all  these  find  a place  in  his 
work,  and,  however  they  may  have  appeared  to  orthodox 
contemporaries,  their  effect  is  now  so  remote  and  childlike 
that  they  seem  not  only  the  natural  outcome  of  a devout 
mind,  but  also  the  appropriate  setting  for  the  holy  story 
itself. 

But  Filippo  was  something  more  than  a dainty  painter 
of  images.  He  was  a scholar  in  the  new  school  of  Floren- 
tine painting,  which  held  that  the  divine  was  never  so  well 
presented  as  through  the  human  form  in  all  its  fulness  of 
character  and  nobility.  These  men  were  intent  on  seeking 
out  every  variety  of  human  action,  character,  and  move- 
ment, and  on  rendering  it  adequately  in  their  pictorial 
work.  The  great  field  of  divine  action  was  no  doubt 
wider  than  that  of  human,  but  there  was  no  way  of  even 

5 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

approximating  to  its  representation  but  by  exhausting,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  variety  of  human  appearances.  Filippo 
Lippi  was  therefore  a ‘naturalist’  painter,  but  with  him, 
as  well  as  the  even  greater  men  by  whom  he  was  influ- 
enced, nature  was  in  no  sense  opposed  to  the  divine,  for 
nature  was  itself  divinely  dignified. 

Trained  in  this  school,  Botticelli  found  the  road  easy 
to  the  company  with  which  he  is  next  found  to  be  associ- 
ated. His  picture  of  Fortitude  at  the  Uflizi  is  one  of  a 
series  of  seven  Virtues  which  were  painted  about  1468 
(according  to  Mr.  Horne)  by  the  brothers  Piero  and  An- 
tonio Pollaiuolo  for  the  hall  in  the  market  of  the  merchants 
where  their  six  magistrates  sat  in  judgment  upon  commer- 
cial disputes.  The  Pollaiuoli,  or  at  any  rate  Antonio,  the 
elder  brother,  were  bolder  naturalists,  more  uncompro- 
mising draughtsmen  than  ever  Filippo  Lippi  had  cared  to 
show  himself.  Though  they  were  goldsmiths  and  decor- 
ators, they  looked  on  the  human  form  as  the  embodi- 
ment of  strength  and  severity,  rather  than  as  a vehicle  of 
pleasant  meanings  such  as  they  expressed  prodigally 
enough  in  their  draperies  and  accessories.  The  other  six 
figures  of  Virtues  arenot  good  examples  by  which  to  judge 
their  work,  for  they  have  suffered  grievously ; but  even 
here  it  is  easy  to  mark  the  sculpturesque  attempt  after 
relief,  dignity,  and  solidity  which  was  the  contribution  of 
the  brothers  towards  the  formation  of  Botticelli’s  style. 
Very  probably  the  Fortitude  itself  is  based  upon  a sketch 
by  Antonio.  Its  execution  shows  Botticelli  not  to  have 
been  entirely  immersed  in  their  influence, and  his  entrance 
6 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


into  their  association  was  so  little  a defection  from  the 

r 

tradition  of  Filippo,  that  in  1472,  shortly  after  it  was 
painted,  and  while  other  pictures  show  Botticelli  to  have 
been  still  strongly  under  their  influence,  Filippo’s  son, 
Filippino,  became  his  pupil. 

A further  strain  of  naturalism  in  Botticelli’s  style  may 
be  connected  with  a definite  incident  which  took  place 
some  six  years  after  this.  Filippo  gave  him  the  love  of  ^ 
human  variety  and  the  Pollaiuoli  the  sense  of  human  dig- 
nity. In  1478  he  is  brought  into  artistic  relation  with  the 
painter  who,  more  than  any  other  in  Florence,  found  in 
naturalism  neither  an  opportunity  for  delicacy  nor  for 
dignity  but  for  cruelty,  blackness,  and  pessimistic  violence. 
Andrea  del  Castagno  is  among  painters  the  expression  of 
the  dark  side  of  the  Italian  Renaissance ; the  sombre  mirror 
ofinternecine  wars,  deep-seated  hatreds,  treacheries,  ruth- 
less ambitions,  love  of  horror.  Traditionally  repre- 
sented as  a murderer,  his  pictures,  as  we  know  them — 
and  indeed  our  knowledge  of  the  pictures  is  already 
prejudiced  by  our  conception  of  his  character — are  severe 
and  black,  consciously  and  intentionally  ugly,  but  so  -’ 
full  of  force  that  they  gain  more  by  their  impressiveness 
than  they  lose  by  their  want  of  charm.  No  more  suitable 
painter  could  have  been  found  when  in  1434  the  effigies 
of  certain  outlawed  enemies  of  Cosimo  dei  Medici 
were  painted  as  hanging  by  the  foot  upon  the  walls  of 
the  Palace  of  the  PodestL  In  1478  Botticelli  appears  as 
the  successor  of  Andrea  del  Castagno,  for  he  was  chosen 
by  the  chief  magistrates  to  paint  upon  the  wall  of  the  old 

7 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


Bargello  the  figures  of  the  eight  conspirators  who,  led  by 
the  Pazzi,  murdered  Giuliano  and  wounded  Lorenzo 
de’  Medici  while  they  were  at  service  in  the  Cathedral. 
The  conspiracy  awoke  a tumult  of  popular  indignation. 
The  conspirators  were  slain  out  of  hand,  or  hunted  down 
without  regard  for  sacred  office  or  foreign  patronage.  Art 
has  many  ways  of  perpetuating  the  memory  of  such  events. 
That  chosen  by  Florentine  usage  is  the  most  direct,  and  is 
no  more  dignified  than  the  illustration  of  modern  journal- 
ism. But  the  work  was  not  despised  by  distinguished 
painters, and  though  both  Castagno’s  and  Botticelli’s  figures 
were  soon  afterwards  destroyed,  they  seem  to  have  made 
a deep  impression. 

The  great  opportunity  of  Botticelli’s  life  occurred  two 
years  later,  in  1480,  when  he  was  thirty-six  years  of  age. 
The  hostility  between  the  Pope  and  Florence  which  had 
resulted  from  the  punishment  of  the  Pazzi  conspirators  had 
been  appeased,  and  the  Pope,  Sixtus  IV.,  invited  Florentine 
painters  to  decorate  a chapel  in  the  Vatican,  which  he  had 
already  caused  to  be  built  by  a Florentine  architect.  Of 
these  Botticelli  appears  to  have  been  the  chief,  and  to  have 
undertaken  not  only  the  execution  of  three  of  the  large 
frescoes  with  which  the  walls  were  decorated,  and  some  of 
the  figures  in  the  spandrils  of  the  roof,  but  also,  according 
to  Vasari,  the  general  supervision  of  the  whole  decoration. 

It  is  not  clear  why  Botticelli  was  chosen  for  the  super- 
intendence of  this  work.  He  had  previously  given  no 
evidence  of  ability  to  construct  compositions  of  many 
figures  on  so  large  a scale.  An  early  effort  in  Pisa  appears 

8 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


to  have  resulted  in  failure,  and  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi 
(Plate  VI.),  painted  for  Santa  Maria  Novella,  the  fame  of 
which  is  given  by  Vasari  as  the  reason  for  the  choice  of 
Botticelli,  is  small  in  its  dimensions.  Nor  had  he  been 
employed  by  the  Pope  before  this  date,  as  had  Domenico 
Ghirlandaio,  the  principal  of  the  painters  then  associated 
with  him.  The  results  of  the  commission  are  equally 
puzzling.  Vasari  asserts  that  the  three  frescoes  which  he 
painted  brought  him  great  fame.  But  the  Pope  himself 
was  best  pleased  with  the  work  of  CosimoRosselli  because, 
so  Vasari  says,  the  clever  painter  had  decked  his  fresco 
with  more  brilliant  colours  than  did  the  others,  and  the 
Florentines  next  year,  when  the  painters  returned  to  Flor- 
ence, very  distinctly  showed  their  preference  for  Ghirlan- 
daio over  Botticelli.  They  were  associated  together  in 
the  decoration  of  one  wall  in  a room  in  the  Palace  of  the 
Signoria,  but  Ghirlandaio  was  given  another  wall  entirely 
to  himself,  a third  was  entrusted  to  Perugino  together  with 
a certain  Biagio  di  Antonio  Tucci,  and  the  fourth  to  Piero 
Pollaiuolo.  Botticelli’s  name  is  given  in  the  entries  re- 
garding this  work  scarcely  more  prominence  than  that  of 
the  forgotten  assistant  who  is  associated  with  Perugino. 

The  failure  of  Botticelli  to  follow  up  his  achievements  in 
Rome  with  similar  masterpieces  in  Florence  seems  to  have 
struck  Vasari  as  remarkable.  He  explains  his  comparative 
inaction  by  the  extravagance  with  which  he  lived  in  Rome, 
squandering  the  goodly  sums  ofmoney  which  the  Pope  paid 
him,  and  living  without  forethought,  as  was  his  custom. 
On  his  return  to  Florence  he  wasted  his  time  in  illustrat- 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


ing  Dante  for  engravings,  and  his  refusal  to  work  was  the 
cause  of  infinite  disorders  in  his  life.  This  account  cannot 
be  quite  correct,  for  the  edition  of  Dante,  which  seems 
to  have  been  illustrated  by  engravings  from  Botticelli’s 
designs,  was  published  before  he  went  to  Rome,  and  the 
more  considerable  designs  for  another  copy,  if  they  were,  as 
is  possible,  begun  towards  this  time,  were  certainly  not  put 
aside  incomplete  until  a much  later  date,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  absence  of  larger  work 
at  this  period.  It  must  have  been  either  Botticelli’s  own 
disinclination  for  covering  walls  with  large  ecclesiastical 
histories,  or,  in  spite  of  Vasari’s  assertion  of  the  fame  they 
brought  him,  a failure  on  his  part  to  give  satisfaction  that 
deprived  him  of  such  commissions.  With  one  exception, 
an  Adoration  for  the  Signoria,  when  the  subject  was  one 
in  which  he  had  already  shown  his  skill  some  four  times 
at  least,  he  never  appears  again  as  an  ecclesiastical  de- 
corator on  this  large  scale.  Such  commissions  went  to 
Ghirlandaio  and  to  Botticelli’s  own  pupil,  Filippino  Lippi. 
Mr.  Horne  rightly  declares  the  Sistine  frescoes,  precisely 
dated  as  they  are,  to  be  of  paramount  importance  in  the 
estimation  of  Botticelli’s  character.  But  to  others  than 
students  of  his  style  and  characteristics,  these  frescoes 
appear  rather  as  isolated  and,  indeed,  unsuccessful  experi- 
ments than  as  master-works,  and,  to  judge  by  the  results, 
it  does  not  appear  that  either  contemporary  opinion  or 
Botticelli’s  own  estimation  differed  largely  from  the  modern 
view. 

With  this  want  of  large  ecclesiastical  commissions  as 

lO 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


the  one  outstanding  fact,  it  is  not  possible  to  agree  with 
Mr.  Horne  that  Botticelli  was  the  most  popular  painter  in 
Florence  during  the  fifteen  years  or  so  that  followed  his 
return  from  Rome.  The  chief  evidence  for  his  popularity 
during  this  period  lies  in  the  number  of  his  imitators,  who 
may  or  may  not  have  been  his  pupils.  It  is  due  rather  to 
the  peculiarity  of  his  temperament  than  to  his  popularity 
that  Botticelli’s  own  work  is  swamped  by  the  mass  of  his 
followers’, and  still  more  that  these  imitators  can  be  distin- 
guished among  themselves  instead  of  falling  into  a merely 
common  horde  of  characterless  reproducers.  His  own 
work  is  very  small  in  quantity,  and  his  moodiness  and 
recklessness,  as  Vasari  would  have  it,  allowed  him  to  leave 
to  others  the  execution  even  of  some  of  his  finest  designs. 
Probably  he  never  worked  save  when  he  was  forced  to  it  by 
the  exigency  of  his  commission.  ‘ He  works  at  home  when 
so  inclined,’  says  his  father  of  him  in  one  of  his  statements 
to  the  tax-collector.  When  not  at  home  it  was  not  likely 
that  he  was  working  anywhere  else.  Similarly,  through  his 
indolence,  his  pupils  were  not  forced  into  strict  reproduc- 
tion of  his  features.  Many  of  the  school-pieces  are  mere 
copies  of  his  pictures  or  variations  from  his  designs — as  is 
the  case  with  the  studio  productions  of  any  other  master. 
Others  are  strongly  imbued  with  some  of  his  character- 
istics, but  are  yet  individual  enough  to  be  allotted  to  certain 
more  or  less  definite  personalities.  These  suggest  a loose 
agglomeration  of  men,  trained  or  even  working  in  other 
schools,  attracted  to  Botticelli  and  helping  him,  or  being 
helped  by  him,  rather  than  definitely  associated  with  him 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


in  the  relation  of  pupils  or  apprentices  to  a master.  One 
designation  for  his  circle  has  been  preserved  in  a manu- 
script defence  of  Savonarola,  written  in  the  next  century. 
The  Academy  of  Idlers  they  are  called,  and  very  probably 
their  easy  and  superficial  methods  of  work  and  their  jests 
made  Botticelli  and  his  group  seem  idlers  and  wastrels  in 
the  eyes  of  the  sober  Florentines,  who  saw  Ghirlandaio, 
or  Filippino,  stubbornly  covering  day  by  day  the  enor- 
mous walls  of  churches.  Certainly  idleness  and  reckless- 
ness appeared  to  Vasari  the  dominant  note  of  Botticelli’s 
character,  and  recklessness  meant  largely,  in  the  mouth 
of  the  serious  sixteenth-century  writer,  a refusal  to  make 
the  most  of  the  talent  that  God  had  given  him,  and  a failure 
to  perfect  himself,  as  an  honest  artist  should,  by  pains- 
taking industry  and  assiduity. 

But,  idle  or  not,  Botticelli  managed  by  his  own  work 
and  that  of  his  followers  to  impress  himself  deeply  upon 
contemporary  Florence.  Their  Madonnas,  blissful,  troub- 
led or  piteous,  with  their  choirs  of  attendant  angels,  satisfied 
in  their  endless  repetitions  the  various  religious  emotions  of 
the  private  patrons  of  the  day.  Fancy  pictures  for  bed 
fronts  or  for  chests,  adorned  with  stories  and  with  alle- 
gories, brought  a touch  of  Botticelli’s  real  gaiety  or  real 
tragedy  into  many  living-rooms,  and  prints  and  illustrations 
from  his  designs  and  those  of  his  circle  found  him  an 
even  wider  public.  Sometimes,  of  course,  Botticelli  himself 
could  be  prevailed  upon  to  paint  more  considerable  works 
for  greater  patrons.  He  was  famous  for  his  pictures  of  the 
nude,  and  he  made  up  for  the  want  of  ecclesiastical  decor- 


12 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


ation  by  his  skill  in  pagan  allegory.  Lorenzo  the  Magnifi- 
cent is  especially  mentioned  by  Vasari  as  his  helper  and 
patron.  Two  pictures  by  Botticelli  were  in  his  posses- 
sion at  his  death.  He  summoned  him  with  Ghirlandaio, 
Filippino  and  Perugino  for  the  decoration  of  his  villa, 
the  Spedaletto,  near  Volterra.  As  a result  of  these  frescoes 
Botticelli  was  recommended,  together  with  the  other  three 
painters,  to  the  Duke  of  Milan  as  a man  likely  to  do  well 
if  employed  in  that  town.  The  precise  phrase  employed 
in  this  letter — his  aria  virile^or  male  character — has  now 
become  famous,  since  it  has  a surprise  for  those  who  have 
seen  in  Botticelli  only  the  somewhat  sickly  prototype  of 
modern  pre-Raphaelite  preciosity.  But  Botticelli  did  not 
leave  Florence,  nor  did  he  work  for  foreign  patrons.  The 
Volterra  decorations  haveperished.  Perhapsthey  wereakin 
to  those  executed,  not  perhaps  without  the  aid  of  pupils, 
for  the  villa  of  the  young  Tornabuoni,  and  now  preserved 
in  a fragmentary  state  in  Paris  at  the  Louvre  (Plate  xiii.). 

Botticelli’s  relations  with  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent 
have  been  greatly  exaggerated  by  modern  writers,  and  it 
is  very  probable  that  the  statements  of  Vasari  himself  are 
based  upon  a confusion  between  this  Lorenzo  and  his  less 
famous  relative  Lorenzo  di  Pierfrancesco.  It  was  for  the 
latter  that  Botticelli  is  recorded  to  have  made  his  illustra- 
tions to  Dante,  and  his  three  most  important  allegories,  the 
Spring  (Plate  v.),  the  Birth  ofV enus  (Plate  xv.),  and  the 
Pallas  and  the  Centaur  (Plate  xvii.),  can  be  traced  to  the 
possession  of  his  family.  The  two  former  may  plausibly 
be  supposed  to  have  been  painted  for  the  villa  at  Gastello, 

13 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


which  belonged  to  Lorenzo  di  Pierfrancesco  and  not  to 
the  Magnificent.  When  the  latter  died  in  149  2 the  former 
entered  into  the  eddies  of  the  Florentine  leadership,  and 
Botticelli  remained  attached  to  the  cause  of  his  chief  patron. 

At  this  point  there  comes  a change.  Florence  had 
grown  overfull  of  its  luxury  and  delight  during  the  trium- 
phant period  of  Lorenzo.  Heads  were  not  strong  enough 
for  this  outburst  of  glory,  and  in  the  storm  that  followed 
all  the  crudenesses  and  evils  which  had  been  present  in 
the  luxury  burst  forth  in  a passionate  catastrophe.  Rival 
Medici  contended  with  might  and  faction  for  the  inherit- 
ance of  Lorenzo’s  predominance.  Wild  excess  of  licence 
bred  excess  of  ascetic  fervour,  antagonisms  of  conscience 
marshalled  under  the  banners  of  rival  parties.  Hostile  to 
the  Medici,  Savonarola,  the  savage  reactionary,  mystic 
and  fanatical  preacher  of  purity  and  retribution,  inflamed 
the  violence  of  his  followers,  and  involved  himself  in 
tragedy.  The  elegance  of  the  preceding  ages  tempts 
into  a delusion  that  these  Florentines  were  not  unlike  the 
moderns  who  enjoy  their  pictures.  The  Savonarolan  out- 
burst proves  the  opposite,  and  shows  how  different  was  the 
spirit  which  then  expressed  itself  in  these  works  from  that 
which  now  shows  itself  in  their  enjoyment. 

Botticelli  does  not  seem  to  have  become  immersed  in 
Savonarola’s  followingwith  the  vehemence  which  is  usually 
credited  to  his  character.  His  elder  brother  Simone,  who 
had  returned  from  Naples  and  had  shared  a house  with  him 
since  about  1493,  was  ardent  in  Savonarola’s  cause  from 
the  first,  entering  his  name  in  149  7 among  the  petitioners 

14 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


against  Savonarola’s  excommunication,  and  taking  a zeal- 
ous part  in  the  disturbances,  of  which  he  afterwards  wrote 
an  account.  But  Botticelli  did  not  join  him  at  once.  In 
July  1497  he  was  still  working  for  Lorenzo  di  Pierfran- 
cesco,  who  was  the  chief  of  Savonarola’s  enemies,  and  in 
1498  he  painted  for  the  Vespucci,  who  were  also  of  the 
faction  hostile  to  the  preacher.  Yet  about  the  same  time 
he  designed  a sheet  illustrating  Savonarola’s  teaching,  and 
by  the  end  of  1498,  after  Savonarola’s  execution,  he  may 
have  openly  professed  his  adherence.  He  was  too  late,  of 
course,  to  join  in  the  bonfires  in  which  the  Florentines 
made  sacrifice  of  jewels,  pictures,  robes,  ornaments  and 
every  sign  of  luxury,  and  where  he  may  have  watched 
some  of  his  own  work  destroyed  in  a conflict  of  feeling 
between  his  not  yet  convinced  sense  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  act  and  his  still  living  love  for  pagan  beauty.  After 
Savonarola’s  death,  Botticelli’s  workshop  became  a centre 
of  Savonarolan  talk.  Simone  tells  in  his  Chronicle  how 
one  Doffo  Spini,  who  had  been  a leading  instigator  of  the 
ordeal  by  fire,  confessed  there  how  lightly  the  proposal 
had  been  made.  By  this  time  some  of  the  bitterness  must 
have  died  down,  but  Botticelli  held  fast  to  the  mystic  ideas 
of  the  dead  leader.  In  1500  he  painted  the  picture  of  the 
which  is  now  in  London  (Plate  xxi.),and  placed 
upon  it  a long  and  mystic  inscription,  telling  of  his  hopes 
of  a new  coming,  and  of  the  desperate  horrors  of  the  time 
in  which  the  work  was  painted. 

This  picture  is  a pamphlet  of  Savonarolan  views,  but 
unfortunately  for  consistency  of  narrative  its  evidence  is 

15 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

immediately  contradicted.  Two  years  later  the  ambas- 
sador to  Isabella  d’Este  recommended  Botticelli  to  the 
princess  as  a likely  painter  in  place  of  Perugino  for  a panel 
in  her  famous  room  at  Mantua.  He  is  recommended  with 
praise  for  his  skill,  and  he  is  said  to  work  willingly  and, 
unlike  Filippino,  who  was  too  busy,  to  have  no  hindrances. 
Nothing  came  of  the  recommendation,  for  Perugino  ulti- 
mately undertook  the  work,  but  the  picture  could  scarcely 
have  failed  to  contain  some  of  those  nude  figures  which 
shocked  the  preacher,  and  had  been  cast  into  the  bonfire 
a few  years  before.  Yet  Botticelli  expressed  himself  as 
ready  to  undertake  the  work  at  once  and  to  serve  the 
princess  with  good-will.  He  found  no  ‘ hindrance,’  as 
the  ambassador  has  it,  in  his  pietistic  views.  Most  prob- 
ably his  fervour  had  died  down,  giving  way  before  that 
recklessness  and  indolence  which  Vasari  again  lays  to  his 
charge  in  the  last  years  of  his  life,  stating  that  his  faults 
brought  him  into  obscurity  and  wretchedness.  This  is  an 
exaggerated  account,  no  doubt,  for  there  is  evidence  to 
show  that  Botticelli  was  never  actually  destitute  ; but 
again  Vasari  wishes  to  explain  the  unnecessary  inaction  of 
a painter  at  a time  when  there  was  no  need  for  any  man 
to  starve  who  had  attained  such  eminence  as  Botticelli. 
Very  probably  the  hard-working  Michelangelo  was 
Vasari’s  authority,  for  he  and  Botticelli  had  been  associ- 
ated in  the  circle  of  Lorenzo  di  Pierfrancesco,  and  they 
had  ties  in  their  common  love  of  Dante  and  in  their  admira- 
tion for  Savonarola,  when  Michelangelo  had  few  friends 
in  Florence  and  fewer  still  among  its  artists. 

i6 


0 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 

But  in  spite  of,  perhaps  because  of,  his  indolence 
and  recklessness,  Botticelli  spent  his  last  days  in  pleasant 
places.  He  lived  in  the  Ognissanti  quarter  of  Florence  in 
the  house,  now  belonging  to  his  nephews,  where  he  had 
always  lived.  He  himself  with  his  brother  Simone  had  a 
country-house  on  the  slopes  of  Bellosguardo,  which  was 
then,  as  now,  covered  with  vines  and  olives,  and  was 
reached  by  winding  stone-walled  paths  opening  or  turn- 
ing now  and  again  into  vistas  over  plain  and  mountain. 
Here  he  played  jests  against  his  neighbour  the  hosier, 
painted,  perhaps,  but  chiefly  idled  with  his  now  somewhat 
chastened  company  of  unemployed.  Even  if  the  end  of 
his  life  was  not,  as  Vasari  has  it,  a tragedy  of  unfulfilled 
intentions  and  promise  thrown  away,  or  spent  in  religious 
fervour  and  burning  repentance,  as  is  suggested  by  some  of 
the  pictures  which  are  assigned  to  him  at  this  period, 
yet  the  end  was  sad.  His  death  came  after  that  of  all 
his  contemporaries,  and  his  work,  however  popular  it 
might  be  among  those  who  were  not  sufficient  judges  to 
remarkon  its  slovenliness  of  execution,  was  old  and  out 
of  date  in  the  eyes  of  the  new  generation.  Men  now 
flocked  to  see  the  masterpieces  in  a new  manner  by 
Leonardo  and  Michelangelo,  and  found  there  the  solu- 
tion of  problems  which  Botticelli  had  faced,  but  never 
overcome. 

He  died  in  May  1510.  He  was  buried  in  the  cloisters 
of  the  church  of  the  Ognissanti,  where  he  had  painted 
one  of  his  first  great  pictures,  the  St.  Augustine  in  his 
Study^  and  in  the  centre  of  the  part  of  Florence  from 

17 


c 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


which  he  had  scarcely  ever  moved.  His  death  was  almost 
unrecorded.  Vasari  mistook  its  date;  the  entry  in  the 
registers  makes  a wrong  record  of  his  name.  He  was 
childless  and  unmarried.  He  left  behind  him  some 
pictures  and  a few  jests  and  the  memory  of  a life  which 
had  some  moments  of  brilliant  achievement,  but  on  the 
whole  had  failed. 

Passionate,  careless,  vehement,  above  all  moody  and 
unaccountable,  such  is  the  character  which  emerges  clearly 
from  his  work  and  the  scant  tradition  which  accompanies 
his  name.  Pagan  and  then  Pietist — perhaps  Pagan  again, 
a famous  jester,  full  of  enjoyment  and  of  feeling,  without 
conscience,  irregular,  he  is  the  type  of  the  artistic  tempera- 
ment as  we  know  it  now.  He  had  the  characteristics 
which  mark  off  the  artist  from  the  modern  citizen,  not 
those  which  marked  off  the  artist  from  the  ordinary  Floren- 
tine citizen  of  his  day.  Therefore  he  shocked  Vasari,  but  to 
us  he  seems  familiar  and  sympathetic.  His  face,  as  painted 
by  himself  or  by  his  pupil  Filippino,  is  one  of  those 
irregular,  passionate,  penetrating  countenances  which 
might  be  found  to-day.  He  gives  himself  the  look  of  his 
own  creations,  not  handsome  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
word,  but  powerful  and  strongly  characterised,  full  of  charm 
and  of  repulsion,  not  great,  majestic  or  dignified,  but 
interesting,  attractive  and  repellent,  swayed  by  emotions 
and  moods,  human,  with  something  of  the  divine  and  no 
little  of  the  beast.  He  was  not  one  of  the  world’s  un- 
approachable heroes,  men  whom  admiration  cannot  reach, 
but  one  of  the  wider  circle  of  the  elect,  whom  you  are  at 

i8 


THE  LIFE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


liberty  to  hate  or  love  according  to  your  own  temperament, 
who  disappoint  their  lovers  by  never  rising  to  the  height 
at  which  the  heat  of  their  love  would  have  themplaced,  and 
equally  dismay  their  haters  by  never  resting  in  the  depths 
to  which  their  hatred  gladly  sees  them  descend. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 

SANDRO  BOTTICELLI,  then,  was  a man  whom  his 
contemporaries  were  free  to  like  or  dislike,  love  or 
hate,  value  or  disregard  according  to  their  own 
temperaments.  No  doubt  many  hated  him,  and  more  dis- 
trusted him.  They  accused  him  of  unreliability  in  his  work 
and  character,  of  excesses,  of  secret  vices,  and  probably 
they  had  good  cause.  Others  no  doubt  loved  him  for  all 
his  faults,  some  perhaps  because  of  them.  No  one  admired 
him  for  greatness  of  character,  for  outstanding  virtues. 
On  the  contrary,  they  held  that  he  failed  in  his  art  because 
of  his  faults  of  character,  for  his  inferiority  among  men  in 
the  nobler  characteristics.  They  may  have  felt  that  he 
stood  away  from  them,  though  probably  they  did  not,  but 
they  certainly  would  not  have  ever  thought  that  he  stood 
above  them.  It  was  possible  to  have  two  views  about  him. 
He  was  a question  of  taste,  not  a test  of  right  feeling.  For 
us,  to  whom  the  character  of  the  man  has  only  a historic 
interest,  his  paintings  have  the  same  effect.  He,  of  all 
painters,  put  his  peculiarities  of  personality  and  tempera- 
ment into  his  work ; unless, indeed, ourand  Vasari’s  view  of 
his  character  is  a mere  inference  from  his  painting.  There- 


20 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 


fore  we  are  free,  as  were  his  contemporaries  with  his  char- 
acter, to  take  him  or  leave  him,  according  to  our  taste, 

See,  for  instance,  his  Birth  of  V enus  at  the  Uffizi 
(Plate  XV.),  and  look  at  it,  as  without  unusual  fortune 
the  traveller  is  bound  to  see  it,  over  the  heads  of  a crowd 
of  sightseers;  as  one  might  meet  a man  in  the  crowd  of 
vapid,  characterless  folk  who  fill  the  ways  of  men.  Then, 
even  in  spite  of  the  prominence  which  fashion  has  given 
it,  the  picture  has  not  really  the  strength  to  detach  itself 
from,  and  enforce  itself  over,  the  mass  of  futile  people  who 
surge  through  the  gallery,  gazing  vacantly  at  picture  after 
picture,  enjoying  nothing  honestly,  disliking  nothing 
spontaneously.  It  is  too  thin,  too  slight,  too  fragile,  to 
enforce  itself  above  empty  and  hideous  humanity.  Its 
fragrance  is  too  delicate  and  slight,  its  atmosphere  too 
remote  and  individual.  You  must  have  it  alone  and  in  its 
entirety  for  its  true  nature  to  appear  to  you;  or,  if  there 
are  others  present,  you  must  have  such  community  and 
sympathy  with  its  spirit  that  it  speaks  to  you  and  to  you 
alone,  and  the  mass  recedes  into  spaces  more  remote  by  far 
than  those  of  the  picture  itself. 

Then,  you  can  catch  from  the  picture  the  breath  of  the 
sea  and  of  the  cool  wind  that  blows  the  slender  maiden  to 
the  embracing  land.  She  is  no  goddess  advancing  to  the 
labours  she  has  to  perform  on  earth  and  to  her  dominion 
amongst  men.  There  is  no  hint  of  the  grandeur  of  her 
place  among  the  gods ; no  majesty  of  the  opening  history 
of  a heroic  life,  no  orchestration  of  the  elements  heralding 
a glory  and  a catastrophe  to  men.  This  is  not  Venus  in  all 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


her  fulness;  neither  the  Venus  of  noble  and  full  humanity, 
nor  yet  the  Venus  of  sensuality  and  riot.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  picture  but  a nymph  blown  ashore  on  a cool  morn- 
ing, one  maid  attending  her,  silence  in  the  corner  of  a 
remote  island,  emptiness  and  stillness  in  the  continent 
beyond.  It  is  a little  picture  in  spite  of  its  large  size,  a 
vignette  or  cameo  from  Dante  or  from  Spenser,  a detached 
vision  or  a dreamy  incident,  leading  to  little  or  to  nothing. 
It  is  just  a breath  of  delicately  gilded  and  glorified  romantic 
life  and  a moment  of  poetry,  not  grand,  not  noble,  not 
studied,  not  human,  but  exquisitely  imagined — a smile 
or  a sigh  embodied  in  a half-lyric  note  of  fancied  scenery 
and  form. 

There  is  the  sea,  first,  and  its  moment  of  freshness.  It 
is  early  morning.  Botticelli  does  not  attempt  to  represent 
in  one  ideal  instant  the  whole  concentrated  nature  of  the 
sea,  with  all  its  moods,  its  features  of  colour  and  movement, 
depth  and  surface ; nor  yet  to  exhaust  the  visible  appear- 
ance of  the  sea  in  the  actual  moment  in  which  he  wishes 
to  present  it.  He  gives  only  a hint  of  the  sea’s  actual  form 
and  colour  by  one  of  those  flashes  of  brilliant  childishness 
which  make  the  greater  element  in  Japanese  art.  Rhythm 
there  is  not,  for  the  rippling  movement  which  he  is  seek- 
ing is  not  rhythmic.  It  is  rather  an  absence  of  rhythm, 
an  all-pervading  melody  springing  up  simultaneously  on 
every  side,  like  a rapid,  throbbing  ecstasy  of  muted  notes. 
But  there  are  forms  enough  for  suggestiveness  in  the  care- 
less white  arrowheads  of  foam  and  in  the  simple  colouring 
of  the  sea  itself. 


22 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 


Next,  there  are  the  roses  falling  everywhere,  gently 
and  lightly,  as  they  are  carried  by  the  wind  which  flicks 
the  sea  with  foam.  They  are  half-wild,  half-cultivated 
flowers,  much  thinner  and  scantier  than  ours,  as  the  grey- 
green  sea  is  lighter  and  gentler  than  our  deep  Northern 
oceans;  as  the  bright  Southern  air  is  lighter  than  our 
misted  atmosphere.  But  even  Southern  roses  never  bloomed 
with  the  dreamy  fragility  of  these  scattered  flowers.  Life 
curls  their  petals  with  a more  rounded  fulness,  or  bends 
their  edges  with  a more  elastic  vigour.  The  passing  of 
time  has  done  something  to  dry  the  sap  of  these  summer 
blossoms  and  to  embalm  them  as  it  were  in  an  everlast- 
ing fadedness,  but  this  is  not  all  that  distinguishes  them 
from  the  living  flower.  Half- conventional,  half-realised 
shadows  of  the  blossom,  they  never  grew  into  fulness 
with  scent  and  dew  and  sap,  but  from  the  first  they  were 
idealised  memories  of  the  flower,  truer  to  one  aspect 
of  it  than  any  unselected  presentment  of  the  whole,  but 
still. Ipartial  and  distant  renderings,  inestimably  refined 
and  precious. 

The  flowers  and  the  sea  give  the  note  of  Botticelli’s 
achievement.  In  the  figures  there  is  the  same  delicate  and 
fragrant  lissomness  and  lightness,  the  same  slightness  of 
form  and  troubled  tenderness  of  expression.  They  are 
built  of  frailer  stulf  than  flesh,  something  that  is  the  sport 
of  the  winds,  something  that  shivers  lightly  with  the  pro- 
mise of  morning  and  yet  is  open  and  delicate  with  the 
innocence  of  day.  For  this,  Botticelli  gives  you  dainty 
elongated  limbs  with  choice  dancing  poses,  and  bodies  not 

23 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


quite  steadily  set  upon  their  feet,  excessively  sloping 
shoulders,  well  modelled  feet  and  hands,  and  heads  that 
are  somewhat  too  small.  For  this,  too,  his  draperies  are 
flimsy  and  delicate  as  they  are  upon  the  arms  of  the  atten- 
dant. When  they  are  intended  to  be  in  motion  and  to 
flow  in  the  wind,  the  draperies  become  contorted  ; for 
broad  and  simple  folds  would  be  too  strong  and  open, — 
too  much  in  keeping  with  the  strength  of  midday  and  the 
larger,  more  perfect  man, — to  suit  this  scene  of  morning  and 
fitful  breeze,  and  these  fairy-like  emanations  of  the  fancy. 
For  this,  too,  the  hair  waves  slenderly  in  its  long  coils. 
The  masses  of  blown  hair  which  Michelangelo  loved 
stand  to  these  wisps  of  gold  as  his  large  flowing  draperies 
to  these  half-clinging  folds,  as  his  powerful  masses  of  limbs 
to  these  shadows  of  human  form. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  of  Botticelli’s  vision  even  in 
this  one  picture.  If  it  were,  he  would  be  but  a painter  of 
small  and  dainty  figures,  as  it  were  a moulder  of  Tanagra 
figurines  born  in  a period  of  greater  grace  and  more  pleas- 
ing affectation.  Botticelli’s  dreams  are  not  a mere  efflores- 
cence of  nature,  nothing  more  than  the  representation  of 
one  abstracted  quality  attached  to  just  so  much  of  reality 
as  is  necessary  to  make  it  intelligible.  Below  all  his  ela- 
borated character  Botticelli,  at  his  best,  has  strength  and 
simplicity.  His  roses  in  the  Birth  of  V enus  are,  at  bottom, 
real  roses,  not  merely  the  scent  of  dropping  petals ; his  sea 
is  a real  sea,  not  merely  a shadow  of  a ripple  under  the 
sky.  In  the  same  way  his  bodies  are  real  bodies,  of  a 
type  certainly,  but  yet  strong  and  supple  human  figures. 

24 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 


Mr.  Horne  criticises  him  for  depicting  with  too  great  faith- 
fulness in  his  men  and  women  a somewhat  ungainly  and 
heavy  Tuscan  type.  The  heaviness  of  the  stock  is  so  far 
outbalanced  by  the  delicacy  of  the  attitude  and  of  the 
limbs  that  the  truth  of  the  criticism  is  not  at  the  first  blush 
apparent ; but  the  faithfulness  which  produces  this  fault 
springs  from  an  appreciation  of  the  strength,  dignity,  and 
vigour  of  the  actual  human  body,  and  this  appreciation  it  is 
which  gives  thefigures  their  power.  In  the  Birth  ofV enus 
these  qualities  appear  in  the  whole  body  of  Venus  herself, 
in  much  of  the  attendant  maiden,  but  chiefly  in  the  two 
flying  figures  of  the  winds.  Were  the  arms  and  legs  of 
these  two  figures  less  strong  and  simple,  less  broadly 
sufficient,  they  would  not  produce  so  powerful  an  impres- 
sion of  real  flight ; their  movement  would  be  but  a sugges- 
tion of  intangibility  and  airiness  and  they  would  be  wisps  of 
driven  cloud,  not  the  spirits  of  the  wind  which  are  them- 
selves strong  to  drive  the  clouds  before  them.  So,  too, 
were  she  not  strong  in  herself  and  solid  on  her  feet  Venus 
would  be  too  dainty  and  unsubstantial  to  form  the  centre 
even  of  this  scene,  and  too  much  wanting  in  health  and 
strength  to  embody  in  herself  the  true  morning  freshness, 
which  is  the  spirit  of  the  picture. 

In  other  paintings  the  strength  and  simplicity  of  Botti- 
celli are  more  apparent.  In  the  Spring  (Plate  v.)  there 
is  too  much  vigour  in  the  spirit  of  the  wind  and  in  the 
startled  maiden  whom  he  is  touching  before  snatching 
her  up  to  form  with  him  the  pair  of  flying  figures  in 
the  Birth  of  Venus,  They  are  too  solid  and  vigorous, 

25 


D 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

these  two  figures,  and  their  motion  fails  to  be  communi- 
cated to  the  other  forms  in  the  picture,  as  it  succeeds  in 
the  Birth  of  V enus.  But  in  the  figures  of  the  three  Graces 
which  make  the  true  centre  of  the  Springs  strength  and 
simplicity  and  vigour  are  joined  to  exquisiteness  and  ele- 
gance in  such  a way  that  it  is  difficult  to  decide  which  is 
the  dominant  quality.  These  are  not  phantoms  which 
sway  in  their  dreamy  dance  under  the  green  grove  of  trees 
and  over  the  thick  carpet  of  flowers,  but  strong  human 
bodies  whose  limbs  feel  their  own  weight,  and  have  the 
life  within  them  to  carry  it  and  to  bear  it  easily  in  all  the 
perfect  actions  which  spring  from  their  own  strength. 
The  exquisite  pattern  of  their  limbs  is  not  a mere  de- 
corator’s device  to  please  the  eye  with  interlocking  line, 
but  the  outcome  of  sweet  sympathy  of  motion,  the  very 
essence  of  the  dance.  The  arms  and  the  shoulders,  the 
necks  and  the  legs  are  exquisite  and  slender,  but  exquisite 
with  life  and  slenderwith  sinuous  strength.  Such  strength 
and  lile  spring  from  breadth  and  simplicity,  and  at  the 
bottom  of  all  the  beauty  of  this  vision  there  lies  a fund  of 
elemental  life.  Exquisiteness,  remoteness,  and  troubling 
charm  may  indeed  be  the  first  and  the  final  note  of  this 
picture,  as  they  are  of  the  Birth  of  V enus^  but  here,  even 
more  than  there,  the  real  force  of  the  picture  lies  in  the 
marriage  of  this  charm  to  a true  human  joy.  As  in  that 
picture  the  sea  and  the  fresh  morning,  so  in  this  the  deep 
grove  with  a distant  view  over  hill  and  plain  darkened  by 
the  action  of  time  until  the  golden  light  of  morning  has 
become  the  half  dusk  of  evening,  have  clothed  them- 
26 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 


selves  in  human  or  divine  forms,  and  inspiring  them  with 
mystery  and  charm,  have  taken  from  them  none  of  their 
strength  or  vitality. 

Still  more  in  certain  lesser  pictures  Botticelli  has  shown 
that  his  charm  is  no  denial  of  dignity  and  vigour.  Is  it 
too  much  of  a paradox  to  say  that  Botticelli  is  a painter 
happier  in  his  figures  of  men  than  in  those  of  women? 
He  tends  in  his  women  to  become  too  thin  and  slender  in 
the  limbs  and,  in  inevitable  compensation,  too  clumsy  in 
the  body  and  very  often  in  the  drapery.  Frequently  his 
women  have  the  air  of  being  pregnant,  and  they  are  so 
explained  in  the  picture  of  the  Spring  and  in  some  repre- 
sentations of  saints  even  by  Mr.  Horne,  who  gives  his  own 
testimony  to  the  beauty  of  the  condition.  But  in  the 
Dante  drawings  the  disembodied  spirit  of  Beatrice  has  all 
these  features,  and  this  proves,  if  proof  is  wanted,  that  the 
idea  of  pregnancy  is  not  the  explanation  of  the  particular 
form,  but  that  it  is  due  solely  to  the  desire  to  give  mass 
and  weight  to  the  draped  figure,  and  thus  to  present  a 
dignity  and  solidity  which  would  otherwise  be  wanting 
in  the  body.  In  the  figures  of  men,  on  the  other  hand, 
Botticelli  found  all  the  weight  and  strength  he  needed. 
Some  of  the  portrait-heads  show  how  well  he  could  con- 
centrate himself  on  the  representation  of  power  and  force 
of  character,  and  more  than  one  picture  proves  that  with 
him  the  nude  male  became  an  adequate  embodiment  of 
vigour  and  simplicity. 

There  is  no  better  example  of  this  than  the  Mars  and 
V enus  (Plate  xii.)  in  the  National  Gallery.  The  strong 

27 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


young  god  lies  sleeping  with  his  head  thrown  back  and  all 
his  limbs  relaxed.  There  is  no  delicacy  about  his  sleeping, 
but  the  same  sturdy  health  as  he  would  show  in  all  his 
waking  actions,  fighting,  or  hunting,  or  loving.  The  figure 
is  taken  from  the  life  perhaps,  but  not  roughly  or  ignorantly 
transported  into  painting.  It  is  selected  with  full  admira- 
tion of  the  greater  qualities — dignity,  majesty,  strength. 
Thus  the  figure  gives  manhood  to  the  little  enigmatic 
scene  of  the  picture.  Venus,  for  all  the  charm  of  her  face 
and  the  careful  disposition  of  her  easy  robe,  falls  into 
the  second  place,  because  her  attitude  and  her  form  are 
not  definite,  nor  adequate,  nor  fully  thought  out.  Mars 
makes  the  picture.  The  pleasant  cherubs,  the  trees,  and 
the  plain  stretch  of  landscape  beyond  contribute  the  de- 
coration and  give  a comic  air  of  gaiety  to  the  precious 
scene,  but  Mars  gives  it  its  force,  and  saves  it  from  being 
nothing  more  than  a mere  frolicsome  vignette. 

So  great  is  the  force  of  Botticelli’s  personal  charm,  and 
so  powerful  is  the  attraction  of  the  fantastic  eccentricity 
which  belongs  more  to  his  age  than  to  Botticelli  himself, 
that  the  greater  importance  of  his  simplicity  and  dignity  is 
largely  overlooked.  Were  it  not  for  these  qualities,  how- 
ever, his  conception  of  pagan  beauty,  at  any  rate,  would  be 
greatly  lacking.  Vivacity  and  troubling  charm  may  be 
the  sufficient  and  the  proper  accompaniments  of  the 
troubadour  stories  which  gave  subjects  to  such  exquisite 
pieces  of  minor  decoration  as  the  panels  painted  after  his 
design  with  the  tale  of  N as tagio.  They  may  also  give 
very  pleasing  expression  to  a choice  world  of  mediaeval 

28 


THE  PAGAN  WORLD 


fairies  who  are  masquerading  for  the  occasion  as  the  great 
living  gods.  But  the  great  gods  are  not  so  easily  moved 
to  childish  laughter  and  tears.  It  is  not  important  that 
even  the  subjects  of  Botticelli’s  classical  pictures  are  not 
intelligible,  that  the  Spring  is  obscure,  the  Mars  an 
enigma,  the  Pallas  a heraldic  device,  and  the  Calumny 
requires  an  elaborate  commentary  for  its  explanation. 
But  it  would  be  important  were  Botticelli’s  representations, 
however  full  of  charm,  scanty  in  imagination,  trivial  in 
treatment,  and  failing  entirely  to  be  invested  with  the  ful- 
ness of  a larger  life ; were  he  only  to  see  in  antique  poetry 
and  art  a detail  here  and  there  in  flower  or  tree  or  ornament, 
and  to  devote  tender  care  to  just  those  features  of  face  and 
shoulder,  arm,  knee,  hand  or  foot  which  can  readily  be 
seized  with  the  eye  and  rendered  into  verse  or  paint.  This 
would  not  be  enough  to  make  the  vision  live.  Others 
corrected  the  scantiness  of  their  vision  by  the  elaboration 
of  their  material  detail,  as  they  hid  their  bad  drawing  and 
ignorance  of  form  under  a mass  of  ornament.  Botticelli, 
to  his  great  credit,  was  not  of  these.  The  pictures  in  which 
he  is  at  his  best  may  be  counted  on  the  fingers  of  one  hand, 
and  far  too  often  hardness,  lumpiness,  and  excessive  agita- 
tion are  the  faults  which  prevent  him  from  attaining  success. 
But  when  he  is  at  his  best,  the  gods  and  goddesses  appear 
to  him  with  much  of  their  own  grandeur  and  force  as  well 
as  with  the  charm  which  was  his  own ; and  in  such  figures 
as  those  of  the  Graces  or  of  Mars  his  simplicity  becomes 
true  dignity,  and  his  apparent  bareness  of  vision  becomes 
ennobled  by  truly  classic  selection  and  restraint. 


29 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 

SAVONAROLA’S  bonfires,  towards  the  end  of  Botti- 
celli’s lifetime,  solved  in  a manner  which  is  far  more 
efficacious  than  any  theoretic  reasoning,  the  question 
of  the  limit  between  sacred  and  secular  art.  But  for  the 
greater  part  of  his  career  Botticelli  felt  no  scruples  against 
mingling  the  profane  with  the  religious,  the  material  with 
the  spiritual.  Saint  Sebastian  was  a martyr  at  the  stake 
transfixed  with  the  arrows  of  his  executioners.  To  Botti- 
celli as  to  almost  all  the  Italian  painters  he  was  a nude 
youth,  of  superb  and  perfect  form  for  the  very  reason  that 
he  was  a saint,  superior  to  pain  and  suffering  for  the  very 
reason  that  he  was  a martyr.  The  youth  standing  so  easily 
upon  the  fork  of  a tree  in  the  picture  at  Berlin  (Plate  iii.), 
with  his  square  shoulders,  well-poised  head,  light  arms  and 
stalwart  legs,  is  Mercury  in  the  Spring.  When  he  is  dead 
— if  ever  that  strong  smiling  youth  could  die — his  body 
will  lie  relaxed  upon  the  earth  as  lightly  as  that  of  Holo- 
fernes  in  the  picture  in  the  Uffizi.  The  saint  and  the  old 
general  alike  are  clothed  in  the  limbs  ofthe  gods  with  their 
eternal  youth.  Even  Christ  himself  lying  dead  upon  the 
knees  of  Mary,  surrounded  by  the  overpowering  pathos 
of  Botticelli’s  one  truly  dramatic  picture — the  Pieta  of 

30 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


Munich — has  the  strength  and  proportions  of  athletic 
youth,  even  the  beardless  head  of  Mars.  Perhaps  the 
execution  of  this  picture  is  not  Botticelli’s,  but  the  forms 
are  his,  and  his  is  the  spirit  which  sees  in  the  tragedy  the 
death  of  youth  and  the  loss  of  splendid  life.  There  is  no 
religion  in  the  Savonarolan  sense  in  this  identification  of 
the  Christian  with  the  Pagan  which  merges  the  weeping 
over  Christ  into  the  lamentation  for  Adonis,  but  there  is 
religion  in  the  earlier  sense,  when  beauty  and  nobility, 
whencesoever  derived,  were  attributes  of  the  Divine,  and 
all  that  the  imagination  could  give  of  splendour  or  of 
pathos  was  poured  into  the  one  channel  of  the  living 
story  of  the  Scriptures. 

It  was  this  spirit  which  brought  to  Botticelli  the  story 
of  Judith  (Plate  i.)  in  the  same  fantastic  dreamlike  formas 
that  worn  by  Venus  in  her  Birth.  Old  Testament  and 
Pagan  story,  both  found  their  shape  alike  in  a world  of 
quaint  elegance  and  blithe  freshness  which  was  not  that  of 
Hebrew  myth  or  Greek  antiquity  nor  yet  that  of  contem- 
porary Florence.  Judith,  indeed,  as  Mr.  Horne  points  out, 
carries  the  palm-branch  ofFlorentineheralds.  Butsheisno 
Florentine.  With  her  waving  dress,  her  dancing  step,  and 
her  serene  but  wayward  face,  she  is  the  careless  heroine  of  a 
half-realised  story,  an  externalised  poetic  idea  which  is  the 
poet’s  creation  and  belongs  neither  to  her  lifetime  nor  to 
his.  It  matters  little  that  neither  she  nor  her  quaint  wide- 
stepping  attendant  is  the  invention  of  Botticelli’s  own 
imagination.  Salome  and  the  bearer  at  the  birth  of  the 
Virgin  had  taken  with  other  painters  the  forms  of  these 

31 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


two  figures ; Botticelli  saw  them  once  again,  and  saw  them 
with  his  own  eyes,  when  he  was  called  upon  to  paint  the 
Bible  heroine.  A fair  maiden  steps  lightly  in  the  triumph 
of  her  diaring  act ; her  handmaid  strides  grimly  behind  her 
bearing  the  burden.  The  birds  are  singing  as  the  knights 
in  armour  ride  away  and  the  breeze  coils  the  drapery 
around  the  advancing  forms.  A land  of  half-mediaeval 
chanson  where  Spring  is  eternal  and  youth  gilds  horrors, 
unconscious  of  the  neighbourhood  of  evil,  not  Palestine 
in  the  days  of  wars  nor  Florence  with  its  strife  and  luxury, 
is  the  dream  country  in  which  the  young  Botticelli  placed 
Hebrew  and  Greek  alike,  the  paradise  of  old  time  and 
newly  discovered  beauty  in  which  the  heroes  of  his  religion 
lived  and  walked. 

Again,  in  his  earlier  Adorations  Religion  in  the  sense 
of  his  later  work  is  absent.  In  both  the  London  pictures  a 
romantic  familiarity  is  the  keynote  of  the  great  scene.  The 
Magi  and  their  gaily  coloured  retinues  come  crowding 
before  the  heavenly  babe  like  the  characters  of  some  folk 
fairy-tale,  in  which  the  strange  and  wonderful  is  mingled 
throughout  with  the  homely.  The  spirit  which  accepts 
without  surprise  giants  and  ogres,  talking  horses  and 
vanishing  mountains,  is  the  spirit  which  inspires  these 
pictures.  Everything  is  done  which  could  be  construed 
into  romantic  wonder,  rocks  are  contorted,  rich  dresses  are 
contrived,  strange  antique  ruins  form  the  background, 
kings  fall  on  their  knees,  and  vast  moving  crowds  are  in- 
tended to  be  indicated.  Y et  everything  remains  congenial 
and  intimate,  nothing  rises  to  the  sublime,  nothing  awes 

32 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


or  seems  stupendous.  As  Venus  at  her  birth  has  simpli- 
city and  remoteness,  so  the  Virgin  and  the  Child  are  familiar 
and  strange.  Their  want  of  consciousness  and  emphasis 
gives  them  a charm,  but  leaves  them  quite  empty  and  in- 
adequate representations  of  their  true  significance. 

In  the  Adorations  of  a slightly  later  date  the  central 
figures  become  even  more  unimportant.  The  childish 
marvel  of  the  earlier  time — a legacy  from  Filippo  Lippi  to 
so  marked  a degree  that  the  pictures  were,  until  this  year, 
labelled  with  the  name  of  Filippo’s  son — becomes  a more 
adult  and  full-blooded  splendour  as  of  contemporary  life. 
Theelements  remain  the  same,  but  the  treatmentis  grander 
and  more  impressive.  But  the  pictures  become  naturalistic 
rather  than  fantastic  ; they  do  not  for  that  reason  become 
religious.  There  is  great  devotion  on  some  of  the  faces, 
much  proud  humility  in  certain  of  the  attitudes,  and  dignity 
and  nobility  in  the  characters,  but  the  whole  scene  is  one 
of  pomp,  and  it  is  full  of  details  which  are  of  interest  only 
in  themselves  and  detract  from,  rather  than  express,  the  true 
meaning  of  the  subject.  Such  approximation  to  religious 
feeling  as  the  earlier  pictures  contained  through  their  inti- 
macy and  simplicity  is  lost  in  a greater  interest  in  the 
representation  of  handsome  men. 

To  understand  these  pictures  with  their  portraits  and 
their  contemporary  airs  it  is  necessary  to  realise  that  the 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  was  one  of  the  most  popular  sub- 
jects of  religious  processions  during  the  fifteenth  century. 
It  was  not  only  in  pictures  that  the  great  men  of  the  day 
were  represented  as  the  Kings  or  Magi,  not  merely  as  a 

33 


E 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


compliment  to  patrons  that  the  painters  gave  their  features 
to  the  principal  actors  of  these  scenes.  Actually,  in  the 
flesh,  the  Medici  rode  at  the  heads  of  processions  from 
their  castles  to  some  sacred  spot,  in  mimicry — half  pious, 
half  ostentatious — of  the  scene  of  the  Nativity.  Recorded 
processions  seem  to  have  definitely  occasioned  some  of  the 
best  kno’wn  Adorations,  and  they  have  more  than  a faint 
echo  in  the  pomp  and  ceremony,  the  elaborate  and,  to  say  it 
simply,  theatrical  grouping  and  postures  of  these  pictures 
by  Botticelli.  Because  the  pageantry  was  whole-hearted 
and  simple-minded,  the  character  of  the  figures  is  not 
theatrical  in  the  bad  modern  sense  of  the  term,  but  because 
it  is  self-conscious  and  of  a ritual  character  it  remains 
theatrical.  They  are  children  dressed  up  and  believing 
in  their  parts,  and  therefore  they  are  pleasing  and  to  some 
extent  convincing ; they  are  not  imagined  as  the  real  per- 
sons of  the  incident,  and  therefore  they  are  not  religious. 
Most  clearly  of  all  is  this  to  be  seen  in  the  figures  of  the 
Holy  Family  which  should  represent  the  central  incident 
of  the  story.  Placed  in  the  background,  they  are  not  the 
central  and  emphatic  part  of  a real  scene,  but  they  are  like 
painted  images,  the  objects  of  a ritual  worship,  the  sym- 
bols of  a cult,  and  not  the  inspiring  force  of  a spontaneous 
action. 

Not  till  a still  later  picture,  anterior  itself  to  his  con- 
version, did  Botticelli  attempt  to  embody  in  an  Adoration 
a powerful  and  constraining  motive.  In  the  panel  in  the 
Uffizi,  which  is  but  a sketch  coloured  by  a later  hand,  de- 
tails and  individual  actions  are  swamped  in  a great  move- 

34 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


ment  which  represents  the  Universe  surging  in  ecstasy  to 
the  birthplace  of  its  Saviour.  The  beginnings  of  a new  art 
are  in  this  picture,  and  the  seeds  of  a new  spirit.  But  even 
so  the  representation  is  not  complete.  Vehemence  had 
taken  the  place  of  bold  and  dignified  naturalism,  as  that  had 
itself  taken  the  place  of  homely  romance,  but  vehemence 
is  represented  foritsownsake,as  in  all  Botticelli’s  creations 
of  this  period ; it  is  not  marked  with  any  special  spiritual 
force  of  the  crowds  around  the  manger.  Even  here  the 
central  figures  are  petty  and  inadequate ; the  imagination 
of  the  incident  does  not  start  from  and  become  penetrated 
by  their  significance.  The  crowd  forms  the  picture,  and 
the  religious  keynote  must  be  supplied  by  the  spectator 
who  knows  why  the  crowds  are  thus  agitated  ; for  the 
painter  has  not  had  the  force  to  make  explicit,  even  to  sug- 
gest, pictorially  the  meaning  of  the  scene. 

Where,  then,  does  Religion  enter  into  Botticelli’s  pic- 
tures ? Not,  certainly,  in  his  hard  and  gaunt  saints  and 
bishops  who  stand  beneath  the  Coronation  of  the  Virgin, 
or  fill  the  spandrils  of  the  Sistine  Chapel,  or  surround  the 
Madonnaasshesitsenthroned.  Noryetinthelargeungainly 
‘machines’  which  do  duty  for  religious  histories  upon  the 
walls  of  the  Sistine  Chapel.  Here  certainly  he  makes  an 
attempt  to  be  magnificent  and  awe-inspiring.  He  en- 
deavours to  be  definite  and  to  mark  strong  character;  his 
virility  leads  him  to  exaggerate  hard  outlines  and  to  imagine 
heroic  poses.  His  saints  and  doctors,  as  a result,  are 
bogeys  which  would  frighten  children.  Only  St.  Augus- 
tine in  the  little  picture  in  the  Uffizi  and  in  the  charming 

35 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


predella  in  the  Academy  (Plate  x.)  is  a cheery,  good-hum- 
oured old  plebeian  with  a round  face,  a round  nose,  and  an 
embracing  smile.  But  even  St.  Augustine,  if  indeed  it  be 
he,  becomes,  in  the  fresco  on  the  wall  of  the  Ognissanti 
(Plate  IV.),  the  big-handed,  large-boned  man  of  action, 
austere  in  look  and  sudden  in  his  movements,  in  whom 
Botticelli  found  his  type  of  spiritual  manhood.  Here  he 
has  a rapt  intensity  of  ecstasy  which  seemed  to  Vasari  a 
masterstroke  of  religious  fervidity.  A Last  Com7nunion  of 
St,  ferome  is  much  less  known,  but  it  was  copied  several 
times  andmayhave  attained  a popularity  which  it  deserved, 
for  it  has  a restraint  in  feeling  and  in  execution  which 
marks  it  as  superior  to  all  other  examples  of  Botticelli’s 
religious  pathos.  Elsewhere  his  vehemence  of  expression 
becomes  too  tragically  riotous,  and  in  such  scenes  from  the 
lives  of  the  saints  as  the  four  panels  of  San  Zenobio,  con- 
torted agitation  takes  the  place  of  dignity,  and  the  effort 
for  significance  becomes  so  exaggerated  and  ugly  that  it 
detracts  even  from  the  impression  of  horror  which  it 
should  convey. 

Botticelli  has  two  main  types  of  the  Madonna,  one  of 
which  may  be  associated  with  these  vehement  representa- 
tions of  religious  fervour.  Whenever  the  Signs  of  the 
Passion  are  carried  by  the  attendant  angels — sometimes 
when  these  symbols  of  his  meaning  are  absent, — the  wistful 
or  downcast  gaze  of  his  Virgins  becomes  the  piteous  weep- 
ing of  the  prophetic  mother,  and  the  lips,  delicately  turned 
elsewhere,  are  contracted  at  the  corners  of  the  mouth  in 
unrestrained  anguish.  This  type,  with  a head  of  Christ, 

36 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


which  is  almost  a primitive  mask  of  piteousness  or  agony, 
is  the  most  characteristic  of  his  later  period,  and  exists  in 
pictures  which  suggest  the  hands  of  pupils  rather  than  the 
work  of  the  master.  The  more  generally  characteristic 
version  is  less  extreme  in  its  delineation  of  one  passion 
and  more  full  of  various  character. 

In  the  earliest  pictures  the  head  of  the  Madonna  is 
almost  colourless  and  conventional,  the  type  of  tenderness 
and  sweetness  which  Botticelli  inherited  from  the  monastic 
tradition  through  Eilippo  Lippi,  and  to  which  his  pupil 
Filippino  Lippi  gave  a more  unquestioning  adherence. 
Gradually,  however,  the  type  assumes  more  personal  char- 
acter, becomes  more  thoughtful  and  more  sensitive,  more 
delicate,  languorous,  and  weary,  more  troubled  with  the 
mystery  of  an  uncomprehended  fate,  until,  in  its  complete 
form,  it  emerges  as  precisely  that  of  Venus.  This  identi- 
fication of  the  two  types  should  cause  no  surprise ; it  has 
nothing  in  it  which  is  peculiar  to  Botticelli.  To  all  the 
painters  of  the  period  the  Virgin  appeared  as  the  Incarnation 
of  all  human  beauty.  It  would  have  argued  lack  of  religion  ' 
to  withhold  from  her  any  element  of  beauty  which  could 
be  thought  to  increaseher  glory.  Hence  she  was  endowed 
with  all  the  graces  of  the  heathen  goddess.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  would  have  savoured  of  sin  against  beauty  to  with- 
hold from  Venus  any  of  the  perfections  of  form  and  feature 
which  seemed  fair  upon  the  face  of  the  Madonna.  There- 
fore the  two  types  must  coincide.  No  irreligion  is  the 
cause  of  this,  but  excess  and  all-pervadingness  of  one 
emotion,  religious  and  aesthetic  at  once,  undivided  itself 

37 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


and  unconscious  of  any  division  between  the  beauties 
appropriate  to  different  ideas. 

When  the  same  man  gave  to  either  figure  the  whole 
of  his  conception  of  female  beauty,  the  types  were  bound 
to  coincide.  Botticelli’s,  however,  whether  in  Madonna 
or  in  Venus,  has  for  the  present  generation  a note  which 
is  pre-eminently  religious.  But  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine precisely  in  which  quality  this  note  consists.  The 
air  of  amazed  mystery,  the  suggestion  of  greater  know- 
ledge, the  hint  of  languid  suffering  which  are  marks  of 
Botticelli’s  types  are  all  part  of  the  network  of  charm  which 
makes  his  Madonnas  appear  the  true  image  of  religion. 
But  as  soon  as  they  are  divided  off  and  made  emphatic, 
they  gain  a character  of  their  own  which  has  no  claim  to 
be  regarded  as  pre-eminently  religious,  and  they  become 
some  of  the  many  ideals  which  may  be  equalled,  or,  if  you 
will,  surpassed  by  others.  Mystery,  the  only  one  of  the 
ideals  which  is  by  its  own  nature  an  attribute  of  the  divine, 
is  not  confined  to  any  particular  type  of  beauty,  but  is  the 
concomitant  of  charm,  the  element  essential  to  all  beauty. 
A conscious  air  of  mystification — so  far  from  being  in 
Botticelli  a mark  of  superlative  religious  vision — is  the  link 
which  binds  him — not  only  in  spirit  but  in  the  actual 
methods  of  facial  distortion  and  exaggeration  by  which  he 
produces  it — to  the  most  distant  pole  of  art,  the  art  of 
Greuze. 

The  acts  of  the  Madonna  bring  before  us  more  articu- 
lately than  do  her  features  the  suggestion  of  religion. 
Her  peaceful  maternity  in  the  majority  of  his  pictures,  her 

38 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


acts  of  sweet  and  tender  solicitude  to  the  Babe  whom  she  has 
borne,  these  are  religious  in  that  they  are  part  of  a univer- 
sal human  emotion  which  must,  from  its  universality  and  its 
inestimable  value,  form  great  part  of  every  religion.  It  is  the 
glory  of  the  European  Renaissance  in  art  that  it  perfected  in 
a thousand  varieties  the  universal  ideal  of  the  Mother  and 
Child.  But  Botticelli  is  but  one  of  many  in  the  art  of  this 
representation,  less  varied,  less  inventive,  less  perfect  in 
his  selection,  less  happy  even  in  his  delineation  of  the 
Child  than  many  others.  He  has  no  single  and  completely 
memorable  example  of  the  Mother  holding  her  Infant  to 
compare  either  with  some  of  Raphael’s  or  with  the  sculp- 
tured Florentine  monuments  which  inspired  both  Raphael 
and  himself.  The  memory  does  not  select  the  relation  of 
the  Mother  to  the  Child  as  the  dominant  feature  of  the 
picture;  the  mind  passes  at  once  either  to  some  character- 
istic of  the  surrounding  group  or  to  the  features  of  the 
Madonna  herself.  Even  in  the  Magnificat  (Plate  vii.), 
which  is  the  happiest  in  idea,  the  thought  flies  to  the 
crowning  angel  on  the  right;  or  in  the  Pomegranate  (Plate 
xviii.)  to  the  face  of  the  Madonna;  while  in  the  most 
popular  of  all  the  pictures  of  the  workshop,  the  National 
Gallery  tondo  (Plate  xxiii.),  the  very  remoteness  of  the 
Madonna  from  the  Child  appears  to  be  the  feature  which 
causes  the  picture  to  be  the  most  endearing. 

Fault  has  been  found  with  the  Annunciation  in  the 
Uflizi  (Plate  xix.),not  only  with  the  colour  and  the  execu- 
tion, but  also  with  what  is  asserted  to  be  the  vulgarity  and 
commonness  of  its  poses.  Certainly  the  colour  and  the 

39 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


execution  suggest  that  Botticelli  scarcely  troubled  to  touch 
the  painting  of  this  panel,  but  with  the  shortcomings  in 
the  technique  the  faults  of  the  picture  are  exhausted.  The 
Annunciation,  or  the  conception  of  a heavenly  message,  is, 
like  the  conception  of  innocent  Maternity,  one  of  the 
triumphant  achievements  of  Italian  Art.  Botticelli’s  varia- 
tion upon  the  theme  is  more  successful  than  his  treatment 
of  the  Madonna  and  Child.  The  kneeling  angel  is  at  once 
humble  and  commanding  ; the  Madonna,  living  and 
modest,  deprecates  and  yet  deserves  her  dignity.  The 
commonness  of  the  types  is  but  an  aspect  of  the  humanity 
of  the  vision;  the  conception  is  not  lowered  by  the  natu- 
ralism of  the  forms.  The  picture  has  neither  the  haunt- 
ing subtlety  nor  yet  the  exquisite  line  of  earlier  Sienese 
representations,  but  it  has,  as  they  have  not,  a breadth, 
tangibility  and  force  of  expression  which  bring  the  scene 
from  decorative  dreamland  into  the  world  of  living  action. 
There  is  still  greater  force  and  dignity  in  the  Angel  Gabriel 
which  Botticelli  painted  with  his  own  hand  in  fresco  for 
the  Monks  of  San  Martino,  and  though  the  Madonna  has 
been  entirely  overlaid  with  repainting  and  the  whole  wall 
has  suffered,  the  remains  of  the  fresco  contain  an  even 
greater  suggestion  of  poetry,  through  the  great  distance 
of  colonnade  down  which  the  message  echoes. 

Without  his  angels  Botticelli  would  have  failed  of  the 
greater  part  of  his  religious  message.  No  character  given 
to  the  central  figures  of  the  story  could  express  so  well  the 
many  emotions  of  the  Christian  mind.  Purely  imaginary 
forms  are  needed,  figures  endowed  with  superhuman 

40 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


powers,  to  embody  the  emotions  which  are  the  foundation 
of  his  pictures.  In  the  illustrations  to  Dante  his  imagina- 
tion, strangely  enough,  fails  to  give  more  than  a modest 
terror  and  variety  to  the  conventional  devils  of  his  Inferno. 
He  is  far  too  much  occupied  with  the  careful  patterning 
of  his  space,  and  with  studiously  incorporating  all  the 
features  of  the  canto  which  he  is  illustrating — he  is  possibly 
even  trusting  too  much  to  the  terrific  ensemble  of  his  re- 
peated horrors,  to  devise  forms  which  in  themselves  con- 
vey the  horrors  which  he  is  describing.  In  the  Purgatory 
his  design  grows  lighter,  and  some  among  the  scattered 
and  unfinished  figures  are  delightfully  symbolic  of  the 
happiness  which  they  are  shortly  to  deserve.  But  at  the 
end  of  the  Purgatory  he  breaks  forth  into  an  outburst  of 
figures  which  are  the  triumphant  heralds  of  eternal  joy, 
and  in  the  Paradise^  with  some  clumsiness  and  awkward- 
ness, he  carries  his  two  figures  of  Dante  and  Beatrice 
through  every  expression  of  superhuman  and  soaring  bliss. 
One  page  alone,  that  of  Dante  and  Beatrice  passing  above 
the  trees,  is  among  the  greatest  triumphs  of  expression 
which  pictorial  art  has  devised. 

This  imagination  of  disembodied  forms  for  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  emotions  is  the  central  note  of  the  angel 
choirs  which  Botticelli  placed  in  most  of  his  pictures  of 
the  Madonna.  They  are  an  imaginary  chorus  telling  the 
tale  which  the  principal  figures  illustrate;  as  notes  of 
music  emphasise  the  action  of  the  story,  they  express  with 
their  limbs,  their  faces,  their  drapery,  and  their  move- 
ments the  feeling  of  the  painter  before  the  scene  depicted. 

41 


F 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


They  are  the  picture  itself,  while  the  principal  figures 
are  mainly  portraits,  documents,  descriptions.  Such  are 
the  angels  in  the  Coronation  from  the  Church  of  San 
Marco  which  is  now  in  the  Florence  Academy.  Here 
they  are  somewhat  solid,  but  they  dance  lightly  in  their 
double  circles,  and  with  their  blithe  ascending  flight  they 
suggest  both  the  altitude  of  the  heavens  and  the  harmonious 
happiness  of  its  dwellers.  The  gravity  in  the  figure  of  the 
Deity  and  the  humility  in  the  somewhat  awkward  stooping 
position  of  the  Madonna  are  enough,  perhaps,  to  retain  the 
charm  of  the  conventional  and  hackneyed  group,  but  by 
no  means  enough  to  counterbalance  the  pompous,  heavy 
and  exaggerated  figures  of  the  four  saints  and  doctors 
below.  The  choir  of  angels  is  more  than  needed  in  order 
to  bring  the  picture  together — it  is  almost  the  one  touch 
which  makes  it  into  a picture  at  all. 

In  one  form  or  another  the  angels  reappear  in  almost 
all  Botticelli’s  paintings  of  the  Madonna.  Now  they 
enter  as  the  two  angels  who  draw  aside  the  curtains  which 
reveal  the  Mother  and  Child,  as  in  the  San  Barnaba  altar- 
piece  (Plate  IX.),  or  the  little  picture  at  the  Ambrosiana 
(Plate  XX.).  These  are  almost  purely  accessory  figures, 
unnecessary  for  the  literal  representation  of  the  idea,  and 
frigid  in  the  literal  translation  of  their  action.  The 
mere  notion  that  the  Madonna  should  be  hidden  by  a 
curtain  and  suddenly  uncovered  to  the  stare  of  the  be- 
holder, is  theatrical,  idolatrous,  and  offensive.  Moreover, 
in  the  charming  but  carelessly  devised  and  executed  paint- 
ing in  the  Ambrosiana  the  curtain  could  never  have  come 

42 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


between  the  Madonna  and  the  spectator,  and  therefore  its 
removal  is  supererogatory.  But  the  figures  are  justified  in 
the  total  scheme  by  their  contribution  to  the  emotional 
effect.  Details  in  a composition  which  is  generally  want- 
ing in  unity,  they  convey  through  the  character  of  their 
own  part  the  spirit  which  should  be,  perhaps  is,  expressed 
by  the  whole. 

At  other  times  the  attendant  angels  perform  less 
vigorously,  but  enter  more  grandly  into  the  total  scheme. 
The  Madonnas  of  the  Magnificat  or  of  the  Pomegranate 
depend  greatly  for  their  effect  upon  the  studied  faces  and 
attitudes  of  their  attendants.  It  is  wise  not  to  exaggerate 
their  religious  intention,  remembering  the  story  told  by 
Vasari  of  one  of  the  pictures  copied  in  the  studio  of  Botti- 
celli. It  had  in  it  eight  angels,  equal  in  number  to  the 
chief  magistrates  of  Florence.  When  the  pupil  was  to 
bring  his  patron  to  see  the  work,  Botticelli  painted  on  the 
head  of  each  of  the  figures  the  red  cap  which  marked 
the  judge.  The  boy  was  horrified  at  the  transformation, 
thinking,  because  Botticelli  himself,  the  patron,  and  all 
the  bystanders  pretended  not  to  see  the  caps,  that  he 
had  lost  his  senses.  But  though  this  story  shows  that  the 
deep  significance  of  the  painting  was  not  held  in  overmuch 
honour  bythe  Academy  of  Idlers  whose  leader  had  created 
it,  it  does  not  follow  that  somewhere  underneath  the 
laughing  face  there  is  not  a depth  of  feeling  and  real  emo- 
tion. Botticelli  may  have  laughed  in  his  sleeve  at  the  attri- 
bution by  his  patrons  of  deep  meanings  to  figures  which 
to  his  own  eyes  were  merely  expressions  of  a sense  of 

43 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


beauty — he  would  certainly  have  laughed  outright  at  the 
elaborate  analyses  of  modern  admirers — but  the  deep  feel- 
ings were  there,  nevertheless, and  they  controlled  the  con- 
ception of  beauty.  They  governed  his  choice,  among 
contemporary  types,  of  precisely  these  sensitive  and  brood- 
ing faces  of  youths,  and  his  employment  of  them  for  the 
expression  of  religious  emotions.  Waywardness,  passion, 
pride,  nobility  of  idea,  force  of  will,  and  impatience  in 
execution  are  marks  of  their  relation  to  the  Divine — a com- 
plication of  character  which  called  forth  no  sympathy  for 
many  centuries,  and  has  waited  until  the  present  before  it 
could  appeal  as  an  expression  of  religion. 

The  attitudes  of  the  angels  in  these  pictures  are  no 
less  significant  than  their  features.  The  swaying  dance  of 
the  Coronatm^  becomes,  in  the  Virgin  of  the  Pome- 
granate^ a fraction  of  an  adoring  circle.  Stilled  by  the 
immediate  nearness  of  the  Virgin  and  theChild,the  angels 
move  more  gravely,  but  their  strong  young  bodies  bend 
in  the  movement  of  their  adoration,  and  their  young  faces 
are  lit  up  with  the  glory  of  their  inward  thoughts. 

Finally,  when  religion  became  in  its  fanatic  form 
the  sole  and  only  purpose  of  the  picture,  in  the  Nativity 
in  London  (Plate  xxi.),  the  angels,  with  their  setting  of 
light,  become  quite  the  paramount  incident  in  the  picture. 
Botticelli  is  not  painting  here  the  history  of  the  Nativity 
as  it  once  took  place.  The  inscription  tells  us  that  he 
is  painting  with  prophetic  vision  the  Second  Coming, 
which,  as  a follower  of  Savonarola,  he  actually  believed 
to  be  near  at  hand.  Save  that  the  figures  in  the  manger 

44 


THE  RELIGIOUS  WORLD 


have  become  larger  and  more  prominent  than  they  were 
in  earlier  Adorations,  they  vary  little  from  conven- 
tional representations.  Perhaps  already  by  this  date,  cer- 
tainly in  Botticelli’s  mind,  there  would  have  been  some- 
thing of  sacrilege  and  much  loss  of  religious  force  in 
altering  a presentation  which  had  become  hallowed  by 
much  usage.  But  in  the  imaginary  figures  there  was  scoped 
for  worlds  of  emotional  imagination.  Angels  surround^ 
the  Magi  and  the  shepherds,  and  dominate  their  action 
with  their  visible  inspiration.  Angels  embrace  in  their  joy 
the  three  blessed  souls  at  the  foot  of  the  picture.  Angels 
watch  and  sing  upon  the  golden  thatch  of  the  manger. 
Above,  full  in  the  light  of  the  dawning  sun,  eclipsing  its 
rays  with  their  own  brilliance,  the  angels  swirl  in  a light 
ecstatic  dance  of  flight,  waving  their  palm  branches  and 
their  hanging  crowns  as  they  circle  hand  in  hand.  The 
golden  rays  which  fall  from  them  tinge  the  dark  trees 
with  light,  gild  the  thatched  roof,  and  pass  beyond  upon 
the  nearer  figures.  With  this  light  descends  their  joy  and 
their  ecstasy  of  movement,  until  the  whole  scene  becomes 
a chiming  echo  of  the  melody  to  which  their  limbs  are 
moving. 

This  is  Botticelli’s  latest  style — themost characteristic  - 
and  the  most  religious.  Like  a page  of  his  Dante  illus- 
trations, the  Nativity  presents,  in  a crowd  of  figures  and 
a somewhat  distorted  composition,  a penetrating,  all-per- 
vading effort  towards  heaping  up  in  masses  of  emotional 
imagery  the  effect  and  inspiration  of  one  dominating 
thought.  His  last  certain  picture  has  for  its  central  emo- 

45 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


tion  a superhuman  joy;  and  in  joy  the  spirit  of  Botticelli 
showed  itself  at  its  best.  Where  the  spirit  is  one  of  agony 
or  trouble,  his  vehemence  and  distortion  are  unrelieved, 
but  never,  even  when  at  their  most  joyous,  are  Botticelli’s 
pictures  so  thoroughly  conceived  in  happiness  that  there 
is  not  within  them  a sense  of  underlying  conflict.  In  this 
lies  the  secret  of  his  appeal  to  the  modern  spirit;  for  while 
he  dwells  on  the  elements  of  beauty,  striving  to  snatch 
from  them  all  the  joy  that  they  contain,  around  and 
among  and  above  these  details  of  happiness  there  rests 
the  presence  of  persistent,  inevitable  pain. 


CHAPTER  IV 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 

SO  far  Botticelli’s  work  has  been  regarded  almost 
entirely  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  interpretation 
as  an  effort  of  imagination.  To  a certain  extent 
this  point  of  view  fails  to  do  justice  to  him  as  a painter. 
The  imagination  that  can  be  interpreted  in  words  might 
take  the  forms  of  poetry,  perhaps  even  of  music,  equally 
well  as  those  of  painting.  Yet  it  forms  the  first  element 
in  the  painter’s  mind.  The  second  element,  Observation, 
with  its  concomitant,  Representation,  can  also,  to 
some  extent,  be  regarded  as  common  to  the  different  arts. 
It  is  with  the  third.  Decoration,  that  the  painter  has  ex- 
clusively to  deal ; for  though  each  of  the  other  arts  has 
its  own  features  of  decoration,  and  these  can  be  compared 
with  each  other,  their  means  of  attraction  and  their  powers 
of  expression  are  bounded  by  the  limits  of  the  particular 
art.  The  attempt  made  by  some  modern  writers  to  attri- 
bute to  his  decorative  element  the  whole  of  Botticelli’s 
value  and  attraction  is  one-sided  and  misleading.  But  if 
it  be  clearly  understood  that  each  of  the  three  elements — 
Imagination,  Observation,  and  Decoration — must  be  in- 
separably present  in  any  complete  work  of  art,  and  that 
the  analysis  of  each  one  of  them  necessarily  touches 

47 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


upon  and  involves  the  others,  the  best  way  to  approach 
a painter’s  work  may  well  be  through  his  decorative 
side. 

The  full  effect  of  Botticelli’s  decorative  work,  like 
that  of  most  of  his  contemporaries,  is  lost.  For  Botticelli 
this  is  even  a greater  loss  than  in  the  case  of  most  other 
painters,  since,  from  what  is  known  of  his  original  output, 
the  purely  decorative  character  of  his  commissions  was 
proportionately  large.  His  little,  long  pictures  and  those 
of  his  school,  the  stories  of  San  Zenobio,  Virginia,  Lucretia 
— even  the  Calumny  and  the  Mars  and  V mus  were  in- 
tended to  form  part  of  wooden  furniture.  Their  setting 
is  lost ; in  their  frames  on  the  walls  of  galleries  much  is 
obscured,  and  much  more  is  brought  into  too  great  pro- 
minence. His  frescoes  in  the  Sistine  Chapel  fail  in  their 
effect  through  the  remodelling  of  the  building.  The 
V enus  has  lost  its  setting,  and  the  Spring  not  only  has 
been  shorn  of  its  golden  lights,  but  is  placed  in  the 
Academy  on  a wall  beside  two  altar-pieces  of  Filippo 
Lippi,  which  are  thoroughly  out  of  keeping  with  it  in 
colour,  in  size,  and  in  feeling.  To  see  the  picture  it  is 
necessary  to  stand  in  the  next  room,  and  to  frame  it  as 
far  as  possible  by  the  open  door.  The  Dante  drawings 
are  unfinished,  and  bereft  of  both  the  spontaneity  of 
the  original  line  and  the  colour  which  was  the  reason  of 
the  rigid  outline.  The  frescoes  of  Lorenzo’s  villa,  the 
Spedaletto,  are  destroyed.  Those  of  the  Tornabuoni 
villa  remain  only  in  fragments. 

Yet  as  the  Tornabuoni  frescoes  are  the  most  purely 

48 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


decorative  of  his  remaining  works,  they  form  the  most 
fitting  approach  for  those  who  wish  to  learn  his  manner. 
Time  has  dealt  kindly  with  their  colour,  reducing  to 
pale  blues  and  greens  the  once  brilliant  and  clear  tints, 
and  making  even  the  strong  brown  of  Giovanna’s  dress 
distant  and  vanishing.  A uniform  mist  of  toned  plaster 
has  replaced  the  unity  of  coloured  light.  In  certain  other 
pictures  which  are  still  in  their  original  condition,  Botti- 
celli’s colour  can  be  judged  with  greater  trustworthiness. 
Clear  and  cool  tints,  transparent  and  equable,  mark  the 
Birth  of  Venus ^ the  larger  Madonnas^  or  the  Mars. 
Elsewhere,  when  the  picture  was  smaller,  Botticelli  be- 
comes richer  and  hotter,  using  strong  blues,  browns,  reds 
and  yellows  in  bold  juxtaposition.  In  the  Calumny  or 
the  Adoration  of  the  Uffizi,  his  colour  is  at  its  best.  Here 
the  strong  and  rich  tints  are  massed  together  and  set  off 
against  powerful  browns  and  dark  heavy  greens.  But, 
throughout,  the  strong  colour  is  clear  and  brilliant,  never 
clashing  or  violent,  and  everywhere  it  is  harmonious  with 
the  lustre  of  jewels  and  gold.  Gold  runs  through  his 
tints  as  a thread  in  Flemish  tapestry,  bringing  light  into 
the  dark  places  and  richness  into  the  lighter  colours. 
There  is  gold  in  his  draperies  and  in  his  hair,  in  the  jewels 
or  in  the  leaves  of  trees,  and  it  is  the  gold  which  draws  all 
the  harmonies  together  in  a restrained  glory  of  imagined 
day. 

The  decorative  effect  of  the  fresco  of  Giovanna 
Tornabuoni  is  produced  by  the  balance  and  contrast  of 
the  two  halves  of  the  painted  space.  In  one  half  there  is 

49 


G 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


the  single,  simple  and  severe  figure  of  Giovanna.  She  is 
given  emphasis  by  her  isolation  and  dignity,  and  by  her 
severity  of  colour  and  line.  In  the  other  half  there  is  a 
comparatively  complicated  group  of  drapery,  faces,  limbs, 
movements,  lines,  and  colours.  The  whole  makes  up  a 
loosely  balanced  design  which  more  or  less  adequately 
fills  the  space;  one  mass  answers  to  the  other  without  for- 
mality and  without  repetition.  To  those  who  consider 
that  a decoration  for  a wall  should  retain  the  flatness  of 
the  surface  on  which  it  is  painted,  this  balance  of  groups  is 
sufficient  virtue  for  the  fresco.  But  in  praising  it  for  this 
reason  they  forget  that  even  here  Botticelli  deliberately 
attempted  to  destroy  this  flatness  and  to  give  the  fresco  a 
space  and  depth  of  its  own  by  inventing  and  emphasising 
a figure  of  a child  in  the  foreground.  In  the  second  fresco, 
that  of  LorenzoTornabuoni,  the  effort  to  produce  an  effect 
of  space  is  very  evident  in  the  grouping  of  the  Sciences,  and 
with  the  greater  feeling  of  space  there  comes  naturally  a 
further  breaking  up  of  the  grouping  and  a more  varied 
disposition  of  the  figures. 

These  two  tendencies  are  constantly  observable  in 
Botticelli’s  work:  the  one  towards  a loose  balance  of  some- 
what isolated  masses,  the  other  towards  a definite  patterning 
of  the  space  whichhas  to  befilled.  With  the  second  comes, 
naturally  but  not  by  any  means  necessarily,  a study  of  the 
illusory  spatial  relations  between  the  figures.  In  the  large 
decorative  pictures,  the  Spring^th^  Birth  of  V enus^2.Vi.di  to 
some  extent  in  the  Pallas^  the  figures  are  almost  isolated 
and  laid  on  like  separate  superficial  ornaments.  It  is  only 

50 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


with  considerable  effort  that  the  differentgroups  within  the 
Spring  are  brought  into  a connection  of  line  and  space 
and  movement,  although  when  once  the  connection  has 
been  seen, it  is  easyfor  the  observer  to  discover  an  exquisite 
beauty  and  subtlety  in  the  slight  means  of  connection,  and 
the  more  the  relation  is  invisible  to  the  ordinary  observer 
the  more  credit  for  discernment  accrues  to  the  discoverer 
of  the  subtlety.  This  isolation  of  the  separate  groups  is 
perfectly  compatible  with  the  most  careful  and  choice 
patterning  in  the  details.  Nothing  could  be  more  exquis- 
itely rhythmical  and  inter-related  than  every  part  of  the  ' 
group  of  the  Three  Graces  in  this  picture ; nor  could  more 
melodious  outlines  be  conceived  than  those  of  the  Venus 
in  the  Birth  or  of  Flora  in  the  Spring. 

In  other  pictures  this  careful  patterning  runs  through- 
out the  design.  The  most  striking  example  of  this  is  the 
V enus  and  Mars  in  London.  Here  every  detail  of  mass 
is  studied  for  its  proportion  with  the  other  masses ; every 
line  runs  into  another  line,  balances,  contrasts,  emphasises 
and  completes  the  rest.  Look,  for  instance,  at  the  red 
robe  upon  which  Mars  is  lying.  With  his  toe  he  catches 
a corner  of  the  fabric,  stretching  it  out  along  the  whole 
length  of  his  leg,  and  thus  securing  a dark  and  coloured 
background  for  his  flesh  and  a rigid  line  to  emphasise  the 
curve  of  his  limbsj  In  the  same  way  the  simple  and,  in 
a sense,  plain  background  of  sea  or  plain  in  this  picture,  or 
more  clearly  in  t\itCaIumny^2ir^  the  necessary  (if  artificial) 
complements  to  Botticelli’s  figures.  Where  he  needs  it  he 
can  pour  out  an  exuberant  store  of  flowers  and  foliage  for 

51 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


his  personages  to  revel  in;  but  his  figures  at  their  best  are 
themselves  so  strong  that  stiff  trees,  ora  line  of  sea  or  rigid 
foliage,  forms  their  most  fitting  setting.  The  same  effect 
of  a simple  deliberate  pattern  may  be  seen  in  the  figure  of 
GiovannaTornabuoni  in  the  Louvre  fresco,  or,  as  has  been 
said,  in  the  figures  of  the  Three  Graces  in  the  Spring. 
But  still  more  evident  is  it  in  the  portrait  wrongly  named 
L,a  Bella  Sunonetta  (Plate  xiv.),  in  the  Pitti  Gallery. 
Here  again  there  is  a careful,  restrained , line,  sober  but 
dignified  colour,  and  a deliberate  and  exquisite  pattern, 
with  a background  so  hard  and  dull  as  to  be  a mere  setting 
for  the  beauties  in  front  of  it.  These  are  the  characteristics 
of  Botticelli  in  his  best  and  highest  mood,  and  so  far  from 
the  practice  of  any  of  his  pupils  or  contemporaries  that,  in 
spite  of  the  flatness  of  the  face  and  figure,  no  other  name 
but  the  traditional  one  of  Botticelli  can  rest  as  fitting  to 
the  picture. 

Such  a restrained  and  thorough  patterning  in  line  and 
mass  and  colour  is  the  natural  concomitant  of  Botti- 
celli’s most  careful  and  vigorous  drawing.^  Careful  dis- 
position of  line  follows  upon  the  definite  seizing  of  the 
attitude  and  the  true  representation  of  character.  Rhythm 
is  here,  as  it  is  in  music,  stress  upon  the  dominant  and 
emphatic  notes.  The  whole  figure  is  caught  and  repre- 
sented in  one  characteristic  moment,  and  the  unity  of 
intention  finds  its  expression  in  a carefully  balanced  and 
interlocked  unity  of  design.  The  tenseness  and  concen- 
tration of  the  vision  show  themselves  at  once  in  the  definite 
contour  of  the  figure  represented,  and  in  the  absence  of 

52 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


all  extravagance  and  irrelevance  in  the  pattern  which  the 
contours  make  within  the  frame. 

In  the  representation  of  the  human  figure,  but  still 
more  in  that  of  a group,  something  more  than  linear 
pattern  and  balance  of  masses  is  required.  To  produce 
a single  concentrated  effect  the  space  needed  for  the 
movements  of  the  figures  must  be  single,  and  it  must  be 
as  homogeneous  as  their  lines.  The  second  of  the  Louvre 
frescoes,  that  of  Lorenzo  Tornabuoni,  shows,  as  has  been 
said,  that  a consistent  arrangement  in  three  dimensions 
was  at  one  time  a tendency  of  Botticelli’s  work.  In  the 
early  picture  of  Holofernes  there  is  something  on  a small 
scale  of  the  grand  imagination  of  space  which  best  befits 
a large  mural  picture.  The  figure  of  a man  bending  over 
his  sword  is  not  only  an  exercise  in  foreshortening,  but 
also,  like  similar  but  more  pronounced  figures  in  Luca 
Signorelli’s  work,  the  keynote  of  the  space  within  the 
frame.  Still  more  evident  is  the  effort  in  the  Sistine 
frescoes,  though  there  the  effect  is  not  sustained.  In  the 
Madonna  of thePomegranate  the  angels  recede  and  throw 
the  Madonna  into  spatial  emphasis  as  well  as  find  her  a 
place  in  the  pattern,  which  is  all  that  she  is  given  by  them 
in  the  Madonna  of  the  Magnificat.  But  once  above  all, 
in  the  pictures  of  the  Adoration,  Botticelli  succeeds  in 
joining  together  spatial  effects  with  consistent  design  in 
one  concentrated  scheme.  In  the  Adoration  of  the 
Ufiizi  his  achievement  is  far  beyond  that  of  his  con- 
temporaries. Here,  besides  colour,  he  attains  his  utmost 
dignity  of  form,  and  finds  a setting  which  is,  upon  the 

53 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

whole,  entirely  satisfactory  both  to  the  imagination  and 
the  eye. 

In  this  picture,  it  will  be  remembered,  pomp  and  pro- 
cession are  the  dominating  notes.  Singleness  of  purpose 
and  unity  of  scene  are  the  natural  and  the  necessary 
artistic  and  decorative  counterparts  of  such  ideas.  The 
effect  is  of  a coup  de  th^dtre^  a set-piece  of  momentary 
display.  In  the  earlier  Adorations  the  simpler  fairy- 
tale atmosphere  demanded  no  such  unity.  There  the 
fancy  wanders  on  from  one  end  of  the  picture  to  the 
other,  entertained,  interested,  amused,  and  fascinated  by 
each  successive  detail  in  the  pleasant  array.  The  same 
want  of  concentrated  unity  belongs  to  the  conception 
of  classical  or  allegorical  scenes  such  as  the  Birth  of 
V enus  or  the  Spring.  The  total  effect  is  an  accumula- 
tion of  details.  No  single  moment  is  chosen  to  display 
the  whole.  The  idea  is  meandering  and  discursive  ; 
the  merest  thread  of  connection  is  sufficient.  It  is  Botti- 
celli’s merit,  and  a promise  of  better  things  in  art,  that 
the  discursive  element  which  was  common  to  him  and  to 
his  period  was  counteracted  by  a greater  seriousness  of 
purpose  than  was  possessed  by  most  of  his  contemporary 
Florentines.  Otherwise  such  playful  exuberance  of  line  as 
is  visible  in  the  fresco  of  Giovanna  Tornabuoni  or  the 
drawing  of  Abundance  have  led  to 

the  elaboration  of  petty  detail  which  is  to  be  seen,  for  ex- 
ample, in  Filippino’s  later  work  ; and  Botticelli  would  have 
ended  like  some  of  his  imitators  in  a flourish  of  delicate 
and  fanciful  scroll-work,  as  mannered  as  it  is  meaningless. 

54 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


But  the  element  which  saved  Botticelli  and  led  him  to 
produce  the  finest  and  most  dignified  of  his  works  itself 
led  to  his  disaster.  Intentness  on  significance  above  mere 
decoration  brought  him  to  turn  prettiness  into  dignity, 
discursiveness  into  concentration,  but  it  caused  him  in 
the  end  to  sacrifice  both.  It  has  been  the  fashion  to 
regard  Botticelli  as  the  most  purely  decorative  and  the 
least  representative  of  Elorentine  painters.  Nothing  could 
be  further  from  the  truth.  In  everything  that  is  not  purely 
conventional  Botticelli  is  significant.  His  line  is  not  mean- 
ingless decoration  but  pregnant  description ; his  pattern 
not  mere  toying  with  lines  but  expression  of  action  and 
community  of  action.  Such  expressiveness,  had  it  been 
alone,  might  have  been  successful  in  combating  the  initial 
tendency  to  discursiveness.  But  the  intentness  of  char- 
acter which sucha  love  for  significance  expresses  is  but  one 
aspect  of  Botticelli’s  dominant  characteristic,  vehemence. 
The  excess  of  vehemence  is  over-significance,  and  as  such 
this  quality  ceased  to  combat  the  enemy  discursiveness  and 
only  reinforced  it.  Botticelli  was  saved  from  mere  pretti- 
ness by  his  desire  to  be  significant;  through  his  over- 
significance he  ceased  even  to  be  pretty. 

In  one  picture,  indeed,  Botticelli  succeeded  in  com- 
bining vehemence  of  action  and  feeling  with  concentra- 
tion of  design.  That  picture  is  the  Lamentation  over 
Christ  2X  Munich.  It,  and  the  kindred  but  less  poignant 
Pentecost  belonging  to  Sir  Erederick  Cook  at  Richmond, 
are  passed  over  too  readily  by  writers  on  Botticelli  who  fail 
to  recognise  under  their  ugliness  of  colour,  exaggeration 

55 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


of  attitude,  and  distortion  of  form  the  supreme  effort  of 
the  painter  in  the  direction  which  lay  nearest  to  his  heart. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  modern  revolt  against  pro- 
portion, moderation,  and  restraint  in  the  depiction  of  the 
emotions  will  lead  to  a revised  estimate  of  these  works, and 
cause  them  to  be  accepted  not  only  as  entirely  by  Botti- 
celli himself  but  also  as  a proof  of  his  greater  merit.  Cer- 
tainly in  this  and  in  other  pictures,  mainly  Madonnas  of 
the  pathetic  type,  Botticelli,  or  the  workers  in  his  studio, 
made  use  of  the  simplest  means  to  portray  only  what 
was  absolutely  essential  in  order  to  convey  their  emo- 
tions, and  they  rejected  everything  which,  attractive  in 
itself,  fails  to  heighten  the  main  intention.  Hitherto  mere 
inferiority  of  execution,  carelessness,  and  want  of  the  sense 
of  quality  have  been  accepted  as  the  reason  of  these  pic- 
tures; and  these  had  undoubtedly  a part  in  the  effect. 
But  such  reasons  are  not  necessarily  productive  of  bad 
art,  and  it  may  well  be  that  just  as  the  necessities  of  cheap 
engraving  may  produce  work  which  is  more  effective 
and  true  to  type  than  is  the  result  of  luxuries  of  oppor- 
tunity, so  the  commoner  forms  of  painting  may  have  in 
this  case  led  to  the  emergence  of  beauties  and  justnesses 
which  more  careful  work  and  the  demands  of  a more 
restrained  and  well-balanced  public  would  only  have 
obscured. 

However  that  may  be,  the  L,amentation  stands  alone 
and  supreme  among  Botticelli’s  subject-pictures  for  its 
combination  of  dramatic  concentration  and  design.  In 
the  majority  of  his  other  pictures,  from  the  Sistine  frescoes 

56 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 

to  the  panels  of  San  Zenobio,  though  he  may  contrive 
singi  figures  which  are  equally  poignant  and  tragic,  he 
produ  :es  his  effect  of  vehemence,  not  by  conceiving  one 
moment  which  will  give  a supreme  and  single  impression, 
but  by  crowding  into  his  space  all  the  moving  incidents 
of  a series  of  events ; not  by  concentrating  his  power  into 
single  and  impressive  figures,  but  by  dissipating  his  move- 
ment over  the  distortions  of  a multitude.  Mr.  Horne  says 
well  of  the  illustrations  to  the  Inferno  of  Dante  that  they 
are  commentaries,  not  illustrations  in  the  modern  sense. 
Botticelli  attempts  to  unite  in  a single  space  every  scene 
which  is  described  in  the  chosen  canto.  Dante  and  Virgil 
appear  over  and  over  again  on  the  same  sheet ; the  various 
scenes  which  they  observe  at  the  different  stages  of  their 
adventure  are  displayed  side  by  side  with  equal  emphasis. 
The  skill  required  is  that  of  uniting  into  one  decorative 
pattern  the  different  incidents.  This  Botticelli  contrives 
with  great  success  in  the  illustrations.  In  the  pictures  he 
fails.  Even  in  the  Calumny^  where  only  one  scene  is  de- 
picted, the  figures  fall  into  scattered  groups ; the  drama 
of  the  scene  is  lost  in  the  commentary.  This  is  already  the 
case  in  the  Sistine  frescoes,  where  the  failure  is  emphasised 
by  the  definite  effort  fora  spatial  composition.  The  painter 
sets  detached  masses  of  good  drawing  and  telling  incident 
into  the  foreground ; but  the  real  incidents  dot  themselves 
in  varying  planes  above,  around  and  behind  the  emphasised 
figures.  Virginia,  Lucretia,  San  Zenobio,  all  of  these  have 
their  stories  told  in  scattered  detail.  In  vain  are  connect- 
ing  figures  introduced  between  the  groups.  In  vain  does 

57 


H 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


a single  architectural  frame,  or  a single  landscape,  stretch 
itself  over  or  behind  the  figure  in  an  attempt  to  bring  them 
into  one  whole.  The  details  are  not  seen  together  is  one 
drama,  nor  set  within  a single  space.  All  unity  nd  all 
effect  is  lost  except  that,  which  is  literary  and  not  artistic, 
of  the  cumulated  interest  of  successive  incidents.  Worse 
still,  since  the  emotion  fails  to  weld  the  whole  into  one 
concentrated  vision,  it  finds  expression  in  the  excessive 
agitation  of  each  single  figure.  The  whole  design  fails  to 
embody  or  express  its  intention;  each  figure,  therefore, 
must  attempt  by  the  exaggeration  of  its  part  to  produce  the 
required  effect. 

No  excuse  of  renunciation  which  can  account  for  the 
absence  of  all  accessory  beauty  of  colour  or  detail  in  the 
Lamentation  C2in  palliate  these  failures  in  delineation  and  in 
design.  Botticelli  had  shown  in  many  works  of  his  prime, 
could  show  still  in  such  works  as  his  Nativity^  that  he  was 
capable  of  conceiving  and  executing  works  of  nobility, 
dignity,  concentration, and  simplicity.  In  his  happier  pic- 
tures, Madonnas  or  mythological  subjects,  still  more  in  the 
illustrations  to  the  Purgatory  and  the  Paradise^  he  could 
unify  with  the  radiance  of  his  bliss  form,  feature,  land- 
scape, attitude,  and  accessory.  Maybe  happiness  tends 
to  unify,  tragedy  to  dissever ; comedy  or  ecstasy  needs  less 
rigorous  unity  of  form  than  tragedy  to  produce  its  effect. 
But  there  is  another  and  nearer  reason  why  Botticelli  fails 
to  succeed  in  just  the  direction  in  which  he  attempted  the 
most;  why  his  concentration  and  his  vehemence  failed, 
except  once  in  the  Lamentation^  to  combine  and  make 

' 58 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


him  truly  dramatic.  His  means  were  inadequate  to  exe- 
cute the  vehemence  of  his  ideas ; his  impatience  and  want 
of  persistence  prevented  himfrom  discovering  the  methods 
in  which  alone  he  could  have  given  himself  expression. 
He  was  a modern  of  his  day  in  spirit,  but  he  was  out  of 
date,  almost  a reactionary  in  his  methods. 

Line  and  flat  colour,  a simple  conception  of  space  and 
a sheer  uniformity  of  atmosphere,  these  were  the  means 
of  expression  which  were  at  Botticelli’s  disposal.^  Form 
to  him  was  outline,  colour  was  the  tinting  of  flat  spaces, 
and  space  and  atmosphere  were  rudimentary  conventions 
for  rendering  comparative  nearness  and  farness  of  figures 
and  objects.  With  these  he  attempted  to  portray  vehement 
motion  and  violent  actions.  The  task  was  impossible.  The 
line  which  expresses  vehemence  is  broken  and  dashing, 
merely  suggestive  and  never  representative.  It  suggests 
motion  ; it  does  not  display  the  figure  in  motion.  The 
line  of  motion  in  painting  is  elusive  and- vague,  not.  the 
strong  contour  of  the  sculptor.  But  Botticelli  was  born 
to  a rigid  outline  which  defined  the  whole  contour,  showed 
structure,  and  encased  the  form  in  a solid  frame.  Admir- 
able as  a medium  for  the  display  of  the  figure  at  rest,  or  of 
nobility  and  strength  of  concentrated  vigour,  this  medium 
fails  utterly  to  convey  agitation  and  vehemence.  It  is  a 
contradiction  of  all  visual  laws  to  attempt  to  combine  a 
rapid  movement  with  a rigid  frame.  Hence  attitudes 
which  might  have  escaped  all  appearance  of  exaggeration 
had  they  been  merely  suggested,  become  frozen  distortion 
whenjoinedtofullrepresentation;  and,  worse  still, inorder 

59 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


to  give  even  a semblance  of  vehemence  to  these  rigidly 
defined  figures,  they  have  to  be  contorted  and  flung  about 
in  exaggerations  beyond  the  possibility  of  the  frame.  Thus 
in  all  Botticelli’s  later  work  every  moving  figure  is  bent 
forward  from  the  hips  in  order  to  appear  to  move  at  all ; 
arms,  legs,  draperies  are  flung  around,  and  faces  become 
mere  masks,  all  signals  of  distress  with  not  a trace  of 
humanity  to  join  them  together. 

Worse  even  follows  from  the  lack  of  space  and  atmo- 
sphere and  from  the  flatness  of  the  colour.  In  order  to 
express  vehemence  of  scene  without  contradicting  the 
effect  by  hardness,  the  painter  needs  fluid  outlines,  dissolv- 
ing colour,  depth  of  space,  and  finally  contrasts  of  light 
and  shade.  The  whole  apparatus  of  later  Italian  art  was 
needed  in  order  that  Botticelli  might  carry  out  his  con- 
ceptions. But  though  he  conceived,  he  made  no  effort 
whatever  to  execute.  While  he  was  trying  in  vain  to  adapt 
his  ideas  to  the  old  methods,  men  were  working  around 
him  busily  in  new  directions  and  helping  to  find  the 
secrets  which  he  required.  Leonardo  above  all  was 
searching  out  the  means  to  render  possible  in  painting  the 
representation  of  the  emotions  which  Botticelli  felt  and 
was  dumb  to  convey.  The  disappearing  outline  which 
conveys  motion  without  contradicting  it,  and  brings  a 
new  beauty  into  painting  from  the  effects  of  light,  was  the 
discovery  of  Leonardo,  the  beginning  of  modern  art. 
Chiaroscuro  came  later,  though  it  too  followed  from 
Leonardo’s  example.  Depth  of  space  and  atmosphere, 
with  the  unity  which  they  contrive  to  introduce  into  sub- 

60 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


ject  pictures,  were  the  results  of  Leonardo’s  study.  All 
were  brought  forth  in  the  great  cartoon  for  the  Signoria 
which,  strange  as  it  seems,  was  uncovered  years  before 
Botticelli  died.  At  the  same  date  Michelangelo  showed 
his  cartoon  of  the  Bathing  Soldiers^  in  which  the  final 
and  determining  form  was  given  to  strong  sculpturesque 
modelling  of  the  human  figure.  Botticelli  had  advanced 
also  in  this  direction,  but  his  desire  for  vehemence  had 
caused  him,  when  he  was  nearer  to  the  goal,  to  desist  from 
the  attempt. 

So  far  from  joining  in  the  new  movement,  Botticelli 
appears  even  to  have  made  retrograde  steps.  Unable  to 
advance,  he  turned  back  and  became  archaistic. 

As  early  as  the  fresco  of  Lorenzo  Tornabuoni  he  gives 
a suggestion  of  reactionary  feeling.  The  seven  Sciences 
appear  to  many  as  being  by  another  hand,  and  were  it  not 
that  their  features  reappear  in  the  Dante  illustrations,  the 
suggestion  of  a divided  authorship  would  have  some 
plausibility.  But  their  difference  from  the  ordinary  style 
of  Botticelli  is  to  be  accounted  for  on  other  grounds. 
These  figures  were  traditional  and  had  found  their  form  in 
the  art  of  a previous  century.  In  designing  them  Botticelli 
turned  to  their  conventional  representations,  not  probably 
through  laziness,  for  the  forms  chosen  were  not  those  of 
the  conventional  art  of  the  day,  but  through  the  belief  that 
the  forms  hallowed  by  time  possessed  some  magic  and 
appropriateness  which  no  new  invention  could  equal. 
This  is  the  true  archaistic  feeling,  and  it  is  no  surprise  to 
find  it  expressed  in  the  work  of  Botticelli,  whose  mind 

6i 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


from  the  first  showed  a literary  tinge.  The  same  spirit 
expresses  itself  in  the  drawings  for  the  Inferno  of  Dante, 
in  which  the  conventional  and  old-fashioned  routine  of 
commentary  is  slavishly  followed  as  though  the  classic 
poetry  required  illustration  in  a deliberately  traditional 
manner. 

^ Archaism  as  an  expression  for  too  powerful  emotions, 
joined  with  carelessness  of  execution  and  renunciation  of 
proportion  and  restraint,  explain  the  difficult  problem  of 
the  mass  of  Madonnas,  the  portraits  and  the  historic  pic- 
tures, the  allegories,  and  all  the  strange,  ugly,  and  man- 
nered pictures  which  issued  from  Botticelli’s  workshop. 
In  religious  pictures  Archaism  is  always  a valued  quality. 
The  hieratic  mind  shrinks  naturally  from  a too  naturalistic 
rendering  of  the  divine  image ; the  older  and  the  less  liv- 
ing the  representation,  the  more  suggestion  of  the  other 
world  does  it  possess.  There  must  have  been  many  in 
Florence  who  were  as  shocked  by  Filippo  Lippi’s  living 
Madonnas  as  by  his  sins  against  his  habit.  They  would 
have  found  what  they  wished  in  Benozzo  Gozzoli’s  or 
Cosimo  Rosselli’s  rigid  and  hard  echoes  of  Fra  Angelico’s 
tradition.  Close  at  hand,  perhaps  even  Botticelli’s  first 
influence  in  art,  was  that  Neri  di  Bicci  who  continued 
throughout  the  century  to  manufacture  not  paintings  but 
painted  images,  which  were  as  nearly  like  to  the  altar- 
pieces  and  lunettes  of  ancient  times  as  orthodox  but  vulgar 
taste  could  wish  them.  There  are  masses  of  paintings  of 
this  type  hidden  away  in  Florentine  galleries,  and  all  show 
the  same  combination  of  old-fashioned  forms  with  just 

62 


BOTTICELLI  AS  PAINTER 


enough  of  contemporary  influence  to  render  them  palat- 
able. It  is  not  improbable  that  the  workshop  of  Botticelli 
catered  in  its  day  for  this  public,  pouring  forth  with  little 
effort  caricatures  of  the  finest  work  of  the  master  in  a style 
which  through  its  hardness  and  exaggeration  recalled  the 
features  of  paintings  old  enough  to  be  considered  holy. 
Hideously  hard  portraits  with  contorted  outlines  and  de- 
liberately exaggerated  features  may  have  had  the  same 
origin.  Nor  is  Botticelli  himself  to  be  held  irresponsible 
and  all  the  blame  to  be  thrown  upon  his  pupils,  “^is  own 
characteristics,  excess  of  significance,  exaggeration  of  emo- 
tion, superabundant  vehemence,  all  found  in  the  imitation 
of  primitive  art  an  easier  expression  than  by  the  discovery 
of  new  and  adequate  forms.  The  Savonarolan  heresy  and 
its  denial  of  the  beauty  and  value  of  the  external  world 
found  its  natural  expression  in  these  works,  and  even  if 
Botticelli  had  started  on  this  path  before  he  became 
Savonarolan,  when  the  preacher  appeared  he  was  ready. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI 

AS  is  natural  in  the  case  of  a man  of  the  second  rank, 
the  good  in  Botticelli  became  immersed  in  the 
good  of  greater  men,  the  bad  attracted  only  the 
weaker.  Thus  both  good  and  bad  died  out  and  became 
lost  to  memory,  except  as  a tradition  of  brilliant  promise 
and  unsatisfactory  achievement.  The  more  universal  and 
valuable  tendencies  of  the  complex  personality  came  to 
fruition  only  when  developed  by  stronger  men,  while  the 
more  individual  peculiarities — what  in  common  and  in- 
correct language  is  known  as  personality — were  easily 
imitated  by  the  baser  sort,  and  after  a short  period  of  popu- 
larity fell  into  disfavour  and  became  sterile. 

Of  the  influence  for  good  which  Botticelli  exercised 
it  is  not  easy  to  find  definite  traces.  Outliving  his  own 
powers,  he  saw  his  virtues  bear  their  fruit  during  his 
lifetime.  His  one  distinguished  pupil,  Filippino  Lippi, 
came  to  maturity  and  passed  into  decline  almost  simul- 
taneously with  his  master.  Botticelli  was  no  striking  in- 
novator whose  influence  even  on  contemporaries  can  be 
easily  determined.  Rather  he  kept  alive,  and  used  for  the 
easy  expression  of  his  own  ideas,  the  forms  and  the  achieve- 
ments which  others  had  attained  by  their  own  discovery 

64 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


and  labour.  Yet  it  is  possible  to  assume  his  effects,  even 
where  they  cannot  be  definitely  traced ; and  if  his  influ- 
ence was  effective  rather  in  passing  on  the  discoveries  of 
other  men  than  in  making  innovations  for  himself,  yet  this 
is  no  small  work,  and  to  contemporaries  perhaps  as  great 
as  any. 

His  strength  and  his  vehemence  when  most  controlled 
and  dignified  make  Botticelli  in  certain  of  his  works  one 
of  the  most  striking  precursors  at  Florence  of  the  classic 
Renaissance.  He  could  render  the  simple  dignity  of  the 
human  figure  without  the  austerity  of  the  Pollaiuoli  or 
Castagno ; his  nudes  were  supple  and  full  of  charm  as  well 
as  bold  and  strong,  his  compositions  pleasing  as  well  as 
unaffected  and  direct.  Florentine  art  tended  either  to 
excrescences  and  extravagances  which  were  inherited  from 
mediaeval  tradition  and  were  likely  to  flourish  too  luxuri- 
antly in  the  brilliant  and  fantastic  atmosphere  of  the  city, 
or  to  the  harshness  and  the  intellectualismof  the  new-born 
science.  Botticelli  did  something  to  reconcile  the  two 
tendencies.  At  his  best,  his  simple  line  and  powerful  con- 
tour, his  breadth  of  treatment  and  massive  planes,  bring 
him  almost  to  the  threshold  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

Something  of  the  spirit  of  the  Mars ^ for  example,  re- 
mains in  Michelangelo’s  easel  pictures  and  in  the  frescoes 
of  the  Sistine  Chapel.  The  men  were  friends, and  Michel- 
angelo may  well,  in  turning  from  thedulness  and  trivialities 
of  Ghirlandaio’s  workshop,  have  learned  more  than  he 
could  ever  realise  from  the  purity  and  the  graceful  strength 
of  this  simple  figure.  But  there  is  a nearer  connection  than 

65 


I 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


this  between  the  two  painters.  Both  were  ardent  students 
of  Dante,  and  illustrators  of  his  work.  Under  the  hard 
outlines  of  Botticelli’s  more  or  less  finished  illustrations 
the  careful  observer  may  discern  more  spontaneous  and 
sympathetic  pencillings  in  silver  point  which  both  in  size 
and  in  treatment  recall  many  of  Michelangelo’s  drawings. 
There  is  no  little  of  Michelangelo’s  Last  yudgment  in  the 
whole  conception  of  this  Inferno  and  Purgatory^  and  if  to 
this  be  added  resemblances  in  detail,  the  connection  is 
established.  Signorelli’s  is  the  more  obvious  influence  on 
Michelangelo,  but  it  is  not  alone,  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  Signorelli,  too,  learned  something  from  his  not  un- 
sympathetic contemporary  at  Florence. 

On  Leonardo  the  influence  is  more  evident.  He 
mentions  Botticelli  in  his  Notes,  if  disparagingly,  for 
his  neglect  of  landscape.  In  two  directions,  at  least,  he 
carried  further  features  which  Botticelli  indicated.  He 
was  intent  upon  the  decorative  unity  of  the  picture,  the 
one  element  which  is,  however  unsuccessfully,  kept  con- 
stantly before  Botticelli  eveninhis  most  ununified  histories. 
He  insisted  that  all  painting,  all  expression,  and  all  move- 
ment should  be  significant  of  mental  activity.  This  was 
the  distinguishing  characteristic  which  led  Botticelli  to 
his  ruin.  Vehemence,  which  was  the  method  by  which 
Botticelli  most  readily  sought  to  obtain  significance,  was 
the  feature  in  Leonardo’s  great  cartoon  of  the  Battle  of 
Anghiari  which  most  impressed  his  contemporaries. 
Tumults  and  uproars,  flashing  movements  of  men  fight- 
ing and  horses  biting,  the  thousand  incidents  of  warfare, 
66 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


formed  a subject  which  Botticelli  would  have  loved  had 
he  had  power  to  paint  it.  But  in  lesser  matters  also  the 
two  men  show  their  relation.  The  latest  Adoration  at  the 
Uffizi  is  so  near  to  Leonardo’s  that  to  many  it  appears  to 
be  itself  a sign  of  his  influence  on  Botticelli.  But  there  is 
nothing  to  support  this  theory,  and,  on  the  contrary,  the 
picture  finds  so  natural  a place  in  the  development  of  Botti- 
celli’s work  that  there  is  no  reason  to  go  outside  his  mind 
in  order  to  account  for  its  conception.  The  effort  towards 
a receding  space  which  this  picture  shows  is  as  pronounced 
in  the  earlier  Adoration  in  the  same  gallery  (Plate  vi.), 
and  this  was  the  best  known  and  the  most  praised  of  all 
the  pictures  by  Botticelli  in  Florence.  In  it  there  is 
more  than  a germ  of  Leonardo,  and  in  the  rows  of  lessen- 
ing  figures  which  in  the  Sistine  fresco  of  the  Temptation 
recall  this  Adoration^  there  is  not  only  a foretaste  of 
Leonardo’s  treatment,  but  also  a hint  that  Raphael  may 
have  studied  it  before  he  painted  the  Leonardesque  figures 
in  his  fresco  of  the  Disputa.  Something  too  of  Botticelli's 
careful  and  restrained  patterning  seems  to  have  passed  into 
the  portraits  which  emanate  from  Leonardo’s  school  if  not 
from  himself,  and  little  as  his  landscapes  were  praised  by 
Leonardo,  his  painting  of  trees  and  flowers,  more  even  his 
drawing  of  them,  as  it  appears  in  the  Dante  illustrations, 
may  have  appealed  to  and  influenced  the  younger  man. 

But  all  this  is  very  problematic,  since  there  were  other 
channels  through  which  both  Botticelli  and  the  younger 
generation  may  have  derived  these  characteristics.  It  is 
more  certain  that  Botticelli  had  a host  of  pupils  and  imi- 

67 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


tators  who  caricatured  and  reproduced  his  mannerisms  for 
a brief  generation,  and  had  a certain  popularity  until  they 
were  supplanted  by  other  fashions.  Among  the  works 
which  they  produced  many  have  much  of  Botticelli’s  charm 
and  spirit,  scarcely  any  have  a touch  of  his  real  vigour. 
Among  their  works  are  many  delightful  Madonnas,  all  the 
more  appreciated  because  their  inferiorities  of  workman- 
ship emphasise  the  charm  of  their  spirit,  and  not  less  be- 
loved because  their  exaggerations  render  their  spirit  more 
obvious  and  easily  recognised.  They  have  left  us  also,  in 
painting  and  engraving,  certain  pleasant  little  histories  and 
illustrations  in  which  the  narrative  attracts  by  its  appear- 
ance of  naivete,  and  certain  portraits  which  delight  partly 
from  the  excess  of  sentiment  in  the  expression  and  partly 
from  the  eccentricities  of  ornament  with  which  the  painters 
tricked  out  their  want  of  solid  observation  and  real  de- 
corative power. 

With  his  greater  qualities  merged  into  the  general  cur- 
rent of  art,  and  his  more  individual  peculiarities  thrown 
into  disfavour  by  newer  fashions,  Botticelli  passed  into 
almost  complete  oblivion.  He  was  classed  among  the 
niannerists  who  worked  in  a hard  and  dry  fashion  which 
was  not  painting.  Material  disregard  is,  of  course,  account- 
able for  much  in  this  want  of  appreciation.  The  pictures 
were  cast  aside,  and,  if  not  already  rendered  invisible  by 
dirt,  were  not  accessible,  or  were  unsuitable  to  contem- 
porary schemes  of  decoration.  The  rebirth  of  a painter 
comes  slowly  as  picture  after  picture  is  discovered  and 
identified,  and  then  given  a prominence  which  corresponds 
68 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


to  the  painter’s  place  in  contemporary  thought.  But  the 
renascence  of  Botticelli  and  of  the  whole  Quattrocento 
during  the  nineteenth  century  is  not  purely  the  effect  of 
the  cleaning  and  hanging  of  the  pictures ; just  as  the  Re- 
naissance of  classic  art  was  not  merely  due  to  the  excava- 
tion of  antiquities.  A spirit  requires  to  be  reborn  which 
not  only  leads  men  to  search  for  the  forgotten  remains 
but  also  to  appreciate  those  which  have  always  been  before 
their  eyes. 

In  Botticelli  the  quality  which  led  to  this  rebirth  was 
partly  negative.  Men  had  grown  tired  of  the  complicated 
structure  of  illusion  which  the  traditions  of  the  schools  had 
laid  down  as  a necessity  in  painting.  His  comparative!^ 
simplicity  of  design  and  colour  gave  him  a dignity  and  an 
air  of  authentic,  spontaneous  feeling  which  more  elaborate 
methods  of  decoration  fail  to  possess.  There  is  an  effect 
of  austerity  and  restraint  about  the  mere  technical  character 
of  tempera  painting,  and  it  has  a suggestion  of  some  primi- 
tive virtue  and  excellence.  This  is  of  course  illusory  to 
a great  extent,  for  there  is  nothing  primitive  in  the  extreme 
skill  and  dexterity  which  even  earlier  painters  than  Botticelli 
expended  in  their  technique,  nor  are  their  exaggerations  of 
line  and  attitude  any  more  primitive  and  authentic  than 
the  floridity  of  later  ages.  The  painters  of  the  Quattrocento 
could  be  just  as  empty  decorators,  and  just  as  little  filled 
with  a sense  of  conscientious  and  religious  effort,  as  their 
successors  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Greater  knowledge 
of  the  period  and  the  prominence  given  by  the  excess  of 
fashion  to  second-rate  works,  are  having  their  effect  in 

69 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


removing  the  fanciful  illusions  of  the  original  discoverers, 
but  to  them  the  mere  absence  of  the  conventions  of  which 
they  were  tired  was  sufficient  recommendation  of  their 
discoveries. 

But  there  is  another  and  a positive  side  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Quattrocento.  The  greater  painters  of  the  full 
Renaissance  assumed  into  themselves  all  the  qualities  of 
their  precursors,  but  welded  them  into  a mass  of  such  duly 
balanced  proportion  that  the  single  separate  qualities 
entered  as  parts  only  within  a greater  whole.  Imitators 
attempted  to  reproduce  the  effect  of  wholeness  and  pro- 
portion only,  and  therefore  they  became  vapid  and  empty. 
Dignity,  nobility,  balance,  solidity, which  are  the  qualities 
of  proportion,  soon  come  to  lack  intimacy  and  immediate 
emotional  appeal.  Accident  and  over-emphasis  appeal  to 
the  minor  emotions,  which  are  crushed  out  of  the  greater 
conceptions,  as  the  greatest  tragedies  call  forth  no  tears, 
and  are  absent  through  mere  vapidity  of  imagination  from 
the  empty  dignity  or  the  grandiloquence  of  the  shadows 
of  the  great.  These  minor  emotions,  however,  inspired 
much  of  the  art  of  the  Quattrocento.  It  was  an  experi- 
mental and  tentative  age,  and  it  gave  expression  in  full  and 
exaggerated  form  to  all  its  various  tendencies  of  mind. 
Naturally  therefore  the  complicated  modern  temperament 
harks  back  to  these  appearances  of  earlier  and  uncertain 
effort.  This,  too,  is  an  age  of  conflict  and  uncertainty, 
of  disputed  authority  and  disproportionate  views.  It  is 
an  age  without  grandeur  and  almost  without  dignity,  of 
violent  emotionalism  and  no  general  canons  of  judgment. 

70 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  BOTTICELLI 


Consequently  the  immediate  and  natural  appeal  to  this 
generation  is  made  less  by  the  universality  and  propor- 
tion of  the  masterpieces  of  the  succeeding  age  than  by 
the  efforts  towards  expression  of  the  precursors.  There 
is  a sign  that  empty  grandiosity  will  soon  assert  its  claims, 
and  that  millionaires  and  luxurious  amateurs  will  revive 
the  empty  splendours  of  a still  later  age,  but  that  is  not  yet. 

It  is  above  all  by  his  expression  of  the  spirit  of  trouble 
that  Botticelli  has  won  his  renewed  glory.  The  repaint- 
ing by  Rossetti  of  the  portrait  of  Smeralda  in  the  lonides 
collection  shows  what  qualities  were  seen  in  Botticelli  by 
one  of  his  earliest  admirers.  Pater,  who  has  done  more 
than  any  other  writer  to  bring  Botticelli  into  the  world  of 
English  thought,  emphasises  this  aspect  by  his  fanciful 
identification  of  Botticelli’s  intention  with  the  heresy 
which  represented  the  human  race  as  the  ‘ incarnation  of 
those  angels  who,  in  the  revolt  of  Lucifer,  were  neither 
for  Jehovah  nor  for  His  enemies,’  and  he  explains  on  this 
ground  the  peculiar  sentiment  of  his  figures  as  ‘the  wist- 
fulness of  exiles,  conscious  of  a passion  and  energy  greater 
than  any  known  issue  of  them  explains.’  Trouble  and 
uncertainty  give  to  Botticelli’s  creations  the  air  of  life  and 
reality  which  is  the  first  requirement  of  art,  and  unlike  the 
agony  and  magnificent  striving  which  remove  Michel- 
angelo’s conflict  from  the  sphere  of  daily  emotion,  their 
human  weakness, — neither  of  heroic  angels  nor  of  damned 
souls, — brings  them  with  peculiar  intimacy  into  the  hearts 
of  the  contemporary  world. 

Yet  this  very  intimacy  with  the  lesser  emotions  which 

71 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


gives  Botticelli  his  charm,  is  itself  a sign  of  weakness  and 
of  want  of  universality.  Botticelli  has  life,  but  not  the 
greatest,  the  most  desirable  life.  As  was  said  of  the  man, 
you  are  free  to  take  him  or  leave  him.  Perhaps  it  would 
be  better  to  leave  him.  Want  of  universality  led  him 
to  disproportion  and  exaggeration.  Indulgence  in  his 
art  soon  leads  to  a loss  of  a true  grip  on  life.  His  revival 
of  popularity,  even,  coincides  with  a divorce  between 
the  ideas  of  the  artistic  and  of  the  active  world.  Such 
indulgence  as  his  in  the  emotions  of  weakness  is  not  that 
of  either  the  ordinary  man  or  of  the  greater  man ; it  is  a 
backwater  or  a refuge  from  lifewhichis  goodfora  moment, 
but  cannot  be  the  whole.  Hence  the  dominance  of 
Botticelli  and  of  an  art  akin  to  his  means  that  to  most  men 
art  seems  something  apart  from  and  different  from  life. 
This  in  the  end  would  be  the  death  of  art. 

Therefore  in  estimating  Botticelli  it  is  better  not  to 
dwell  so  much  upon  the  wistful  charm  of  his  shrinking 
Madonnas  or  Venuses,  his  agitation  and  vehemence,  his 
half-tones  and  loose  design,  as  upon  the  strong  colour  and 
vigorous  patterning  of  certain  groups  and  figures,  and 
upon  the  calm  and  dignified  strength  of  his  mature  con- 
ception of  man.  The  whole  combination  of  strength  and 
weakness,  of  complication  and  simplicity,  of  power  and 
feebleness  of  will,  makes  up  the  personality  of  fascination 
and  charm  which  is  Botticelli’s;  but  the  strength  is  neces- 
sary even  for  the  appreciation  of  the  weakness,  and,  more 
important  still,  it  helped,  and  can  help,  others  towards  the 
creation  of  greater  things. 

72 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

TWENTY-FIVE  PLATES  IN  COLOUR,  SELECTED 
AND  EXECUTED  UNDER  THE  SUPERVISION 
OF  THE  MEDICI  SOCIETY 


K 


I 


JUDITH 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  1156 

JUDITH  with  the  head  of  Holofernes  was  a favourite 
subject  with  Botticelli.  Besides  in  the  little  picture 
in  the  Uffizi,  he  used  the  subject  in  one  of  the  reliefs 
in  the  Calumny  (Plate  xvi.),  and  later  still  he  painted  a 
more  dramatic  representation  of  Judith  issuing  from  the 
tent  holding  the  head  in  her  hand  (Kaufmann  Collection 
at  Berlin).  The  vehement  action  of  a fair  form  attracted 
him,  not  only  by  its  opportunities  for  figure-painting 
but  also  for  the  complicated  surprises  of  the  mental 
attitude.  In  the  later  picture  Judith  is  somewhat  haggard 
and  nervously  exultant.  Here  she  is  merely  innocent, 
resolute,  and  strong ; a Fortitude  in  action ; and  with  all 
her  strength,  her  character  is  poignant,  thoughtful,  and  not 
without  its  dreams. 

The  picture  is  still  very  playful.  Judith’s  pose  and  her 
drapery  are  fantastic.  There  are  numerous  choice  details 
in  the  headdress,  the  drapery,  and  the  accessories.  Her 
figure  flutters  rather  than  steps  or  walks.  All  of  this  be- 
longs to  the  period  and  is  a mark  of  premature  luxuriance. 
There  is  too  much  foliage  and  too  little  fruit.  But  this 
luxuriance  could  be  corrected  by  increased  skill  and  greater 

L 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


seriousness.  It  is  not  like  the  stereotyped  exuberance  of 
the  painters  of  the  end  of  the  century,  a fault  observable  in 
Botticelli  himself  to  some  degree,  but  more  often  counter- 
acted by  his  too  emphatic  significance. 

The  background  of  the  Judith  recalls  that  of  the  St, 
Sebastian  (Plate  iii.).  The  handmaid  has  a series  of  pre- 
cursors in  Florentine  art;  she  recurs  again  in  duplicate 
in  the  Sistine  fresco  of  the  Temptation,  There  Botticelli 
relapses  into  meaningless  contortions  of  drapery.  Here 
the  figure  is  strong,  over-strong  and  mannish  perhaps, 
but  something  in  her  pose  passes  over  and  stiffens  the 
figure  of  Judith. 

This  picture  together  with  one  of  the  finding  of  Holo- 
fernes  are  recorded  in  1 5 84  as  having  been  together  in  the 
collection  of  Ridolfo  Sirigatti.  He  gave  them  to  the  Grand 
Duchess  Bianca  Capello  de’  Medici  as  ornaments  for  a 
writing  cabinet,  and  from  the  Grand  Ducal  Collection  they 
passed  into  the  Uffizi  Gallery.  The  two  pictures  are  very 
diverse  in  colour,  composition,  and  treatment ; but  the 
has  evidently  been  over- cleaned  and  thereby  gained 
a cool  transparency,  which  is  very  different  from  the  thick 
hot  tints  of  the  Holofernes\  and  the  differences  in  com- 
position are  not  surprising  in  works  which  are  rather  ex- 
ercises by  an  apprentice  hand  than  the  free  performance 
of  a master. 


\ 


> 


, ^ 


I 


UERA8Y 
OF  TFtE 

uHivERsrrv  of  iiuko^s 


II 


PORTRAIT  OF  A MAN  WITH 
A MEDAL 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  1154 

Tradition  gives  no  name  to  the  painter  of  the 
Portrait  of  a Man  in  the  Uffizi  Gallery.  The 
greatest  of  the  comparative  school  of  art-critics, 
Morelli,  first  attributed  it  to  Botticelli,  and  the  attribution 
has  been  generally  accepted,  although  not  without  some 
reasonable  dissension  and  much  conflict  of  opinion  re- 
garding its  date.  Morelli  did  not  attempt  to  give  a name 
to  the  man  who  is  represented  by  the  painting.  His  suc- 
cessors mainly  agree  in  tracing  in  it  the  characteristic 
features  of  the  Medici  family,  but  there  is  no  unanimity 
in  fixing  upon  the  actual  member  of  that  family  represented. 
One  thing  is  certain : the  picture,  whether  by  Botticelli  or 
not,  is  far  too  early  in  date  to  be  a portrait  of  Piero  di 
Lorenzo  dei  Medici,  as  it  is  generally  described. 

The  influence  of  Antonio  Pollaiuolo  is  paramount  in 
this  head.  It  is  certainly  characteristic  of  Botticelli  at 
this  early  period  that  the  features  should  be  marked  with 
such  salience  and  such  strong  shadows  that  the  general 
structure  of  the  head  appears  to  bejlost  in  the  prominence 
of  the  individual  features.  There  is  an  effect  as  of  too 

M 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


great  liveliness  in  a hard  and  resisting  material.  The  dis- 
tortion of  the  hands  may  be  in  part  due  to  restoration, 
but  the  distortion  of  the  features  is  due  to  an  over-great 
realism  and  to  too  vehement  a characterisation.  As  often 
happens,  the  young  painter  forecasts  some  of  the  manner- 
isms of  his  decline.  But  there  is  a difference  between  the 
distortion  due  to  youth  and  that  which  is  due  to  age. 

The  landscape  is  Florence.  The  medal  is  perhaps  an 
actual  cast  from  one  of  Cosimo  the  First,  attributed  to 
Michelozzo.  The  head  upon  it,  with  its  breadth  of  treat- 
ment and  its  repose,  forms  a strong  contrast  to  the  unruly 
lines  and  exaggerated  planes  of  the  portrait-bust  itself 


f 


Ill 


ST.  SEBASTIAN 


BERLIN,  No.  1128 

The  earliest  work  by  Botticelli  to  which  an  exact 
date  can  be  affixed  is  a picture  of  St.  Sebastia?i 
which  he  painted  for  the  church  of  Santa  Maria 
Maggiore  in  1473.  One  of  the  early  notices  of  his  life 
speaks  of  this  picture  as  dating  from  January  1474,  that 
being  probably  the  date  of  the  inscription  recording  the 
dedication  of  the  picture,  since  the  feast  of  the  Saint 
occurs  on  the  20th  of  the  month.  The  same  notice  re- 
cords that  the  panel  was  placed  on  a pillar  in  the  church. 

This  St.  Sebastian  soon  disappeared  from  the  church. 
In  1821  the  Prussian  Government  bought,  among  other 
pictures,  from  an  Englishman  named  Solly  a picture  of 
this  subject  which  was  thought  to  be  by  Antonio  Pollaiuolo. 
If,  as  has  been  generally  agreed  since  the  suggestion  was 
first  made  by  Messrs.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  this  is  the 
lost  picture  by  Botticelli,  it  can  almost  rival  the  National 
Gallery  picture  of  the  Nativity  in  its  claim  to  be  the  first 
picture  by  Botticelli  brought  from  Italy.  In  both  cases 
it  is  noticeable  that  the  admirer  was  an  Englishman. 

Had  Mr.  Solly’s  picture  remained  in  England  it  might 
perhaps  have  hung  in  the  National  Gallery  beside  the  St, 

N 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


Sebastian  of  Antonio  Pollaiuolo,  to  which  picture,  as  might 
have  been  expected  from  the  traditional  ascription,  it 
bears  considerable  resemblance.  Botticelli,  unlike  Pollai- 
uolo, makes  no  attempt  to  reproduce  the  pain  of  the 
martyr’s  death,  and  the  head,  with  its  strong,  sensuous 
features  and  wealth  of  curly  hair,  expresses  neither  agony 
nor  consciousness  of  victory  over  death.  But  the  firm 
relief  of  the  body,  its  apparent  realism  of  form  and  its 
coarse  extremities ; more  still,  the  little  figures  in  the  back- 
ground and  the  setting  of  the  Saint  upon  the  foot  of  a tree, 
recall  Pollaiuolo  and  his  St.  Sebastian  in  particular.  So 
strong  are  these  resemblances  that,  if  Vasari  is  right  in  dat- 
ing Pollaiuolo’s  picture  to  the  year  1 47  5,  the  Berlin  picture 
would  seem  not  to  be  the  same  as  that  painted  for  Santa 
Maria  Maggiore  in  1473,  but  a later  painting  by  Botti- 
celli of  the  same  subject.  Whether  this  is  so  or  not,  the 
painting  of  the  nude  remains  essentially  the  same,  nor  does 
the  character  of  the  head  alter  considerably  in  pictures  such 
as  the  Spring  (Plate  v.)  and  even  the  Mars  and  V enus 
(Plate  XII.),  which  are  generally  attributed  to  a much  later 
date.  To  avoid  placing  Botticelli’s  picture  later  than 
1473,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  Antonio  Pollaiuolo 
painted  another  and  an  earlier  St.  Sebastian  sufficiently 
like  to  the  picture  in  the  National  Gallery  to  produce  simi- 
larities with  it  in  Botticelli’s  picture. 


• v ' • • , ■ * ..  •'  ,■•■,■•{'. 


-I 


K 


\ 


IV 


ST.  AUGUSTINE 

CHURCH  OF  THE  OGNISSANTI,  FLORENCE 

The  fresco  of  St,  Augustine  in  the  church  of  Ognis- 
santi  was  painted  by  Botticelli  as  a companion 
picture  to  the  fresco  of  St.  Jerome,  by  Domenico 
Ghirlandaio,  in  the  same  church.  Ghirlandaio’s  fresco 
bears  the  date  1480  ; there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Botticelli’s  does  not  date  from  the  same  year.  Both  frescoes 
were  moved  in  1564,  while  the  second  edition  of  Vasari’s 
Lives  was  in  the  press,  from  the  screen  which  separated 
the  choir  and  the  nave  to  their  present  position  on  the 
walls  of  the  nave.  Vasari  describes  how  they  were  bound 
with  irons  for  their  removal.  The  operation  has  done  them 
little  harm,  but  they  have  lost  their  original  decorative 
surroundings  which  their  present  borders,  painted  at  the 
time  of  the  removal,  do  not  adequately  replace.  The 
Latin  inscriptions  placed  above  each  fresco  have  reference 
to  the  removal. 

Vasari  gives  the  information  that  the  frescoes  were 
commissioned  by  a member  of  the  Vespucci  family  which, 
like  Botticelli’s  own,  lived  in  this  quarter  of  Florence. 
Both  the  principal  branches  of  the  family  and  many  mem- 
bers of  each  had  chapels,  altars,  or  burial-places  in  the 


o 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


church.  It  is  not  easy,  therefore,  to  choose  the  one  most 
likely  to  have  given  this  commission.  Mr.  Horne  suggests 
that  it  \vas  Ser  Nastagio  Vespucci,  a member  of  the  branch 
which  had  its  house  in  the  same  street  as  that  of  Botticelli, 
and  the  son  of  one  Amerigo  Vespucci  who,  like  Botti- 
celli, was  buried  in  the  cemetery  of  this  church  (in  1472) 
and  had  an  altar  there.  If  so,  Botticelli  painted  this  fresco 
for  the  father  of  the  famous  navigator,  Amerigo  Vespucci, 
who  gave  his  name  to  the  continent  which  he  helped  to 
discover. 

Vasari  says  of  this  fresco  that  Botticelli,  excited  by  the 
competition  with  Ghirlandaio,  made  great  exertions  for  its 
perfection,  and  that  it  was  greatly  praised  at  the  time  for  its 
representation  of  such  deep  thought  and  acute  intellect 
as  belong  to  men  who  are  engaged  in  the  investigation  of 
the  highest  things.  Most  writers  now  agree  that  Botticelli 
has  far  surpassed  Ghirlandaio,  though  Messrs.  Crowe  and 
Cavalcaselle  found  the  St.  Augustine  lacking  in  dignity. 
This  eifect  is  caused  by  the  extent  to  which  Botticelli 
attempts  to  give  intensity  and  strength  to  the  figure.  It 
becomes  hard  and  somewhat  heavy,  and  the  large,  coarse 
hands  are  so  carefully  disposed  that  they  appear  mannered 
and  uneasy. 


•I  ? 


y 


I 

t 


■ "Ih 


•:  j'f] 


v./m 


V 


THE  SPRING 

FLORENCE,  ACADEMY 

The  allegories  of  the  Spring  and  the  Birth  ofV enus 
were  early  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  a villa  be- 
longing to  Giovanni  delle  Bande  Nere,  a member 
of  the  Medicifamily,at  Gastello,  near  Florence.  The  con- 
jecture that  they  were  painted  for  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent 
in  this  villa  is  quite  unfounded.  In  the  first  place,  Lorenzo 
never  owned  this  villa,  which  appears  to  have  come  to 
Giovanni  from  his  uncle  Lorenzo  di  Pierfrancesco ; and 
in  the  second  place,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  pictures 
were  painted  for  the  villa.  It  is,  however,  quite  possible 
that  they,  together  with  several  other  paintings  mentioned 
as  being  in  this  villa  at  a later  date,  were  painted  for  it ; 
and  Mr.  Horne  accordingly  conjectures  that  the  Spring 
was  painted  soon  after  Lorenzo  built  the  villa  in  1477. 
The  point  is  not  proved,  but  the  suggestion  is  plausible. 
As  Lorenzo  was  born  in  1463,  he  showed  a somewhat 
precocious  taste  in  pagan  allegory. 

The  two  pictures  remained  in  the  villa  until  in  1815 
they  were  taken  to  the  Uffizi.  The  Spring  w2iS  not  ex- 
hibited until  it  was  transferred,  at  some  date  before  1 864, 
to  the  Academy.  It  appears  then  to  have  been  cleaned, 

p 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


and  the  treatment  to  which  it  was  subjected,  in  order  to 
rid  it  of  worm,  is  responsible  for  the  blackening  of  its 
colour  and  for  the  removal  of  nearly  all  the  gold  which 
originally  was  sprinkled  profusely  over  all  its  surface. 
Its  present  romantic  sombreness,  however  attractive  it 
may  be,  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  intention  of  the 
painter. 

In  1598,  when  the  picture  was  in  the  dining-room  of 
the  Grand  Duke,  it  was  described  as  representing  ‘Three 
Goddesses  who  are  dancing,  and  Cupid  above  and  Mercury 
and  other  figures.’  Vasari  is  not  much  more  illuminating : 
‘A  Venus  whom  the  Graces  adorn  with  flowers,  signifying 
the  Spring,’  he  says  of  it.  The  road  is  open  to  conjecture, 
and  it  has  been  freely  and  fancifully  trodden.  The  most 
plausible  suggestion  connects  the  painting  with  a passage 
in  the  then  newly  discovered  De  Rerum  Natura  of 
Lucretius  (v.  737),  describing  the  advance  of  Spring  and 
Venus,  preceded  by  Cupid  and  by  Flora,  who  in 
Zephyr’s  footsteps  strews  their  road  with  flowers  and  sweet 
scents.  Elsewhere  Botticelli  shows  himself  a very  literal 
follower  of  the  text,  but  here,  besides  adding  the  Graces 
and  Mercury  to  the  throng,  he  has,  if  his  picture  has 
anything  to  do  with  the  quotation,  reversed  the  procession. 
Venus  is  in  the  centre  with  Cupid  hovering  above  her. 
Zephyr  blows  upon  the  Spring  and  touches  her  with  less 
violence  in  his  hands  than  might  be  expected  from  his 
swooping  flight  and  her  startled  air.  Flowers  fall  from 
her  mouth  as  he  breathes  upon  her,  while  close  before  her 
Flora  moves  lightly  over  the  ground.  On  the  other  side 


THE  SPRING 


of  Venus,  the  Graces  dance  and  Mercury  raises  his  hand 
to  an  orange  upon  the  tree. 

Definite  resemblances  with  the  work  of  the  Pollaiuoli, 
and  a general  air  of  immaturity  in  drawingand  uncertainty  in 
composition,  suggest  a comparatively  early  date  for  the  pic- 
ture. Its  weaknesses  are  obvious,  but  they  cannot  succeed 
in  destroying  its  beauty,  and  there  is  a freshness  in  some  of 
the  figures  which  is  absent  from  Botticelli’s  more  mature 
work.  Even  the  clumsy  form  and  gait  of  the  third  Grace 
cannot  spoil  the  impression  of  sinuous  movement  and  the 
exquisite  pattern  of  the  group.  Flora  takes  the  eye  from 
Venus,  and  the  ugly  colour  and  coarse  forms  of  Zephyr 
and  the  Spring  offend  only  for  a second.  The  picture 
must  be  taken  not  so  much  in  detail — save  for  the  group 
of  the  Graces — as  for  the  spirit  of  the  whole  allegory,  and 
it  then  becomes  a slow,  rhythmical  advance  telling  at 
length  of  the  arrival  of  the  Spring.  Originally  its  dazzling, 
noonday  colouring  might  have  caused  the  movement  to 
appear  too  languid;  but  now,  in  the  darkened  colouring  of 
twilight,  the  spirits  dance  with  the  pathetic  silence  of 


VI 


THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  MAGI 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI 

Botticelli  appears  to  have  painted  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi  five  or  six  times  in  all.  Two  pictures 
now  generally  attributed  to  him  are  in  the  National 
Gallery  (Nos.  592  and  1033).  They  date  from  his  early 
years.  Another  is  in  the  Hermitage,  at  St.  Petersburg 
(No.  3).  A fourth  is  known  to  have  stood  above  a de- 
stroyed staircase  in  the  Palazzo  de’  Signori  in  Florence, 
and  if  it  is  not  represented  in  an  unfinished  picture  at  the 
Uffizi  (No.  3436),  that  picture  would  make  a fifth. 

But  the  most  famous  Adoration  by  him  was  that 
painted  for  Santa  Maria  Novella  and  originally  placed 
between  the  doors  of  that  church.  Vasari  asserts,  probably 
by  conjecture,  that  it  was  painted  before  Botticelli’s  visit 
to  Rome  in  148 1.  It  was  commissioned  by  a member  of 
the  merchant  family  ‘Lami’  or  ‘da  Lama,’  whose  con- 
nection with  the  Medici,  who  are  much  honoured  in  the 
painting,  is  not  recorded.  A reconstruction  of  the  altar 
shortly  after  1568  caused  the  picture  to  disappear,  but  it 
has  now  been  universally  identified  with  a panel  in  the 
Uffizi  which  had  passed  in  the  Grand  Ducal  Collection  as 
a work  oi  Ghirlandaio. 

Q 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


Vasari  is  enthusiastic  in  his  praise  of  this  picture.  He 
attributes  to  it  Botticelli’s  commission  to  superintend  the 
decoration  of  the  Sistine  Chapel  at  Rome.  It  stood  in  his 
eyes  as  the  monument  of  Botticelli’s  merit  amidst  the  ruin 
which  he  made  of  his  life.  Even  in  his  own  day,  he  says, 
every  artist  marvelled  at  it.  Certainly  for  brilliance  and 
harmony  of  colour,  concentration  and  excellence  of  com- 
position, variety  and  dignity  in  the  attitudes,  and  nobility 
and  characterisation  in  the  faces,  the  picture  is  of  surpass- 
ing merit.  It  is  the  sanest  and  most  complete  of  Botti- 
celli’s compositions  of  many  figures,  and  the  one  which  is 
most  free  from  any  vulgarities  or  exaggerations,  personal 
or  of  the  period.  Only  on  the  left  side  of  the  picture, 
where  shadow  falls  on  the  group  of  the  adorers,  does  some- 
thing of  restless  and  over-animated  drawing  persist  from 
the  earlier  Pollaiuolesque  period  and  contrast  unfavourably 
with  the  serene  breadth  of  the  figures  on  the  other  side. 
If  it  was  painted  at  about  the  same  date  as  the  Springs  no 
doubt  the  smallness  of  the  scale  accounts  for  the  greater 
maturity  of  the  composition. 

The  picture  was  famous  for  its  portraits.  In  the  kneel- 
ing figure  of  a Magus  about  to  kiss  the  foot  of  the  Infant, 
Vasari  saw  Cosimo  de’  Medici,  and  in  the  figure  immedi- 
ately below  the  Virgin  his  grandson,  Giuliano.  This,  as 
Mr.  Horne  points  out,  must  be  an  error,  for  Giuliano  was 
murdered  at  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  the  head  resembles 
closely  that  of  Piero,  Giuliano’s  father.  The  third  Magus, 
bending  towards  Piero,  is  said  by  Vasari  to  be  Giovanni, 
his  younger  brother,  represented  as  in  his  youth.  These 


THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  MAGI 


three  were  all  dead  when  the  picture  was  painted.  Portraits 
of  contemporaries  are  also  found  in  the  picture,  but  none 
can  be  identified  with  any  certainty  save  that  of  Botticelli 
himself  standing  in  the  right-hand  corner  and  looking 
proudly  away  from  the  scene  that  he  had  painted.  The 
features  are  those  of  the  head  painted  a few  years  later 
by  Filippino  in  the  Brancacci  Chapel  and  traditionally 
accepted  as  a portrait  of  Botticelli. 


VII 


THE  MADONNA  OF  THE 
MAGNIFICAT 


FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  1267  bis 

Nothing  is  known  for  certain  about  the  history 
of  the  Madonna  of  the  Magnificat  except  that  it 
was  bought  for  the  Uffizi  in  1784.  Several  ver- 
sions of  it  exist,  but  none  can  be  identified  with  plausibility 
as  the  picture  by  Bot^'icelli  in  the  church  of  San  Francesco, 
outside  the  Porta  San  Miniato,  which  Vasari  describes  as 
containing  eight  angels,  and  a slightly  later  writer  as  re- 
presenting the  Madonna  and  Child  surrounded  by  angels 
who  are  singing  with  much  grace.  The  angels  are  not 
singing,  nor  are  they  eight  in  number.  There  is  no  docu- 
mentary evidence  to  date  the  picture,  and  from  the  evidence 
of  style  nothing  more  certain  can  be  said  than  that  it  be- 
longs to  the  period  of  his  maturity. 

Nothing  of  this  picture  is  in  its  original  state  except  the 
figure  of  an  angel  to  theright.  This  is  one  of  the  strongest 
and  most  expressive  of  Botticelli’s  angel  faces,  and  if  the 
whole  picture  once  showed  the  imagination  and  the  power 
exhibited  in  this  figure  it  must  certainly  have  deserved  the 
praise  and  love  which  are  no  longer  its  due.  For  the 
repainting  has  not  only  obscured  the  outline  and  the 

R 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


colour,  but  has  also  sentimentalised  the  faces  until  all  the 
true  character  of  Botticelli’s  work  has  disappeared.  This 
is  the  way  in  which  posterity  recreates  its  favourites  after 
its  own  liking.  Different  stages  of  Botticelli  worship 
may  well  be  studied  in  the  so-called  restoration  of  the 
portrait  of  Smeralda  (Victoria  and  Albert  Museum),  the 
Madonna  of  St.  Barnabas  (Plate  ix.),  and  this  picture. 
The  sick  soul  of  Rossetti  appears  in  the  first,  the  distor- 
tions of  feeble  excess  in  the  second,  while  here  a ripe  and 
full-blooded  sentimentality  has  softened  the  forms  and 
prettified  the  features  which  probably  once  proceeded  from 
the  strongest  and  most  mature  of  Botticelli’s  moods. 

Of  course,  the  composition  remains  Botticelli’s.  A 
school  copy  in  the  Louvre,  omitting  the  angel  on  the  left 
with  upstretched  arm,  suggests,  with  its  more  effective 
simplicity,  an  amendment  due  to  the  mind  of  the  master 
himself. 


f' 


VIII 


HOLY  FAMILY  AND  SAINTS 


BERLIN,  No.  io6 

AN  altarpiece  by  Botticelli  in  the  chapel  of  the  Bardi 
in  the  church  of  San  Spirito  is  recorded  by  Vasari 
and  older  authorities.  It  showed  the  Virgin  and 
Child  and  St.  John  the  Baptist,  and  Vasari  mentions  ex- 
pressly the  careful  finish  of  the  picture  and  its  olives  and 
palms  which  were  painted  ‘con  sommo  amore.’  This  is  the 
picture  for  which  Botticelli  was  paid  by  Giovanni  d’ Agnolo 
de’  Bardi  seventy-five  gold  florins  in  August  1485  : two 
for  the  ultramarine,  thirty-eight  for  the  gold  and  the  gild- 
ing of  the  frame,  and  thirty-five  for  the  painting  itself.  In 
February  of  the  same  year  Botticelli’s  friend  Giuliano  da 
San  Gallo  had  received  twenty-four  florins  odd  for  the 
frame.  The  picture  was  probably  executed  in  the  interval 
between  these  dates. 

The  description  answers  sufficiently  closely  to  theal  tar- 
piece  acquired  by  Baron  Rumohr  for  the  Berlin  Gallery 
in  1 829.  It  was  bought  from  a dealer,  and  is  supposed  to 
have  been  acquired  by  him  from  the  family  of  the  Bardi, 
from  whose  chapel  Botticelli’s  picture  was  certainly  re- 
moved in  the  seventeenth  century.  Vasari  may  easily  have 
forgotten  to  mention  the  second  figure  of  a Saint,  St.John 
s 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


the  Evangelist,  and  the  excellent  preservation  of  the  panel 
permits  his  praise  of  the  careful  execution  and  of  the  trees 
to  be  appropriately  bestowed  upon  this  picture. 

The  evidence  of  Vasari  and  the  other  writers  is  all  the 
more  useful  in  this  case  because  much  in  this  unattractive 
picture  appears  at  first  sight  strange  to  Botticelli.  The 
figure  most  characteristic  of  his  style  is  that  of  the  Child;  the 
painful  precision  of  the  detail  and  the  grimness  of  the  fig- 
ures are  less  familiar.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  this 
is  a picture  painted  for  an  orthodox  and  ritual  purpose,  and 
Botticelli’s  definite  contour  easily  led  to  harshness,  as  is 
evident  in  the  frescoes  of  the  Sistine  Chapel,  which  are 
dated  not  long  before  the  commission  of  this  picture.  As 
it  is, the  picturemust  be  accepted  as  the  most  important  evi- 
dence of  Botticelli’s  ecclesiastical  style  on  his  return  from 
Rome,  and  instead  of  this  work  being  disregarded  as  un- 
usual, more  doubtful  and  less  well  preserved  pictures  must 
be  tested  and  reconstructed  in  its  light. 

There  is  no  record  in  any  list  or  document  of  another 
picture,  which  is  said  to  have  come  from  the  church  of 
San  Spirito,  the  Pentecost  in  Sir  Frederick  Cook’s  collec- 
tion at  Richmond.  It  is  a singularly  unpleasing  work  at 
first  sight,  ugly  in  colour,  over-expressive  in  gesture,  and 
heavy  in  drawing.  But  its  monumental  character,  the 
amplitude  and  nobility  of  some  of  its  figures,  and  its  very 
exaggerations  of  expression  suggest  that  it,  like  the  finer 
Lamentation  at  Munich,  is  the  counterpart  on  a large  scale 
of  such  undoubtedly  genuine  but  late  works  by  Botticelli 
as  the  San  Zenobio  series.  The  Lamentation  and  the 


HOLY  FAMILY  AND  SAINTS 


Pentecost  stand  in  relation  to  the  Madonnas  of  the  Pome- 
granate and  the  Magnificat do  the  San  Zenobio  pictures 
to  the  Calumny  or  the  Adoration  in  the  Uffizi.  As  in  the 
case  of  the  Annunciation  (Plate  xix.),  no  doubt  the  brush 
was  principally  applied  by  the  hands  of  pupils. 


IX 


VIRGIN  AND  CHILD  WITH  ANGELS 

AND  SAINTS 

FLORENCE,  ACADEMY,  No.  85 

The  altarpiece  by  Botticelli  of  The  Virgin  with 
Saint  Catherine ^2.^  the  old  lists  call  it,  remained  in 
the  church  of  St.  Barnabas  until  it  was  removed 
to  the  Academy  on  the  suppression  of  the  monasteries  in 
1808.  This  continuity  of  position  has  unfortunately  not 
beenaccompanied  by  excellence  of  treatment.  The  picture 
has  been  so  much  repainted  that  practically  nothing  re 
mains  of  its  original  surface  and  colour,  and  it  would  not 
be  safe  to  attempt  to  analyse  the  drawing  or  to  discuss  the 
details.  To  reconstruct  the  picture  it  is  necessary  to  turn 
to  the  altarpiece  at  Berlin  (Plate  viii.),  with  which  and 
the  Sistine  frescoes  this  picture  is  roughly  contemporary  . 
In  this  picture,  as  in  the  Berlin  altarpiece,  the  character 
of  figures  and  accessories  alike  is  harsh  and  grim,  though 
the  angels  introduce  something  of  a more  attractive  hum- 
anity, akin  to  that  of  several  figures  in  the  Temptation 
of  Christ  in  the  Sistine  Chapel,  and  come  close  in  char- 
acter to  those  of  the  V irgins  of  the  Magnificat  Pome- 

granate, 

The  mutilation  of  this  picture  was  not  confined  to  the 

T 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


repainting  of  its  surface.  To  make  it  fit  into  the  head  of 
the  choir,  where  it  was  removed  from  the  high  altar  about 
1 7 1 7,  it  was  enlarged  byoneAgostinoVeracini,  who  added 
the  entire  piece  of  decoration  which  stands  above  the  re- 
presentations of  round  sculptured  reliefs.  This  addition 
has  been  removed  from  the  illustration,  as  it  has  been 
removed  in  Mr.  Horne’s  book.  Veracini  also  added  the 
lowest  row  of  marble  slabs. 

This  altarpiece  is  the  subject  of  a curious  story  told 
by  G.  Richa  in  his  account  of  Florentine  churches.  The 
church  and  monastery  of  San  Barnaba  were  granted  in  the 
fourteenth  century  to  certain  Augustine  Canons.  For  them 
Botticelli  painted  the  picture.  But  in  1522  the  Prioress 
of  the  Carmelite  nuns  received  a visit  from  a mysterious 
stranger,  who  told  her  to  demand  the  church  of  San  Bar- 
naba for  her  order.  This  she  did  and  with  success.  When 
they  had  obtained  the  church  they  desired,  the  Prioress 
found  the  portrait  of  her  mysterious  stranger  in  Botticelli’s 
altarpiece.  He  was  none  other  than  St.  Barnabas  himself. 


V 


X 


THE  VISION  OF  ST.  AUGUSTINE 

FLORENCE,  ACADEMY,  No.  162 

Four  panels  of  the  predella  to  the  altarpiece  of  San 
Barnaba  are  preserved  in  the  Academy  of  Florence. 
These  cannot  be  assigned  with  confidence  to  the 
hand  of  Botticelli  himself,  but  that  which  shows  the  F ision 
of  St,  Augustine  has  the  best  claim  to  be  regarded  as 
Botticelli’s  own. 

St.  Augustine  was  pondering  on  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  as  he  walked  on  the  sand  by  the  sea.  He  found 
there  a little  child  taking  water  from  the  sea  in  a little 
spoon  and  pouring  it  into  a little  hollow  that  he  had  made 
in  the  sand.  ‘ What  are  you  doing  ?’  asked  the  Saint.  The 
child  answered  that  he  was  emptying  the  sea  and  putting 
all  its  waters  into  the  hollow.  ‘ Impossible,’  said  the  Saint. 
‘Not  more  so,’  replied  the  child,  ‘than  your  attempt  to 
put  all  the  great  mystery  and  divinity  of  the  Trinity  into 
your  small  understanding.’ 

This  charming  little  picture  shows  Botticelli  in  the 
playful  and  gracious  mood  of  the  many  decorative  panels 
and  designs  for  illustrations  which  are  associated  with  his 
immediate  environment. 


u 


.4 


m 


iv  ’ - 


• , \ 


y . ^ 
f"'  ■ 


■ 

*■" 


' V 


i.  - 


)- 


V.'. 


t 


'■y'  ' 


XI 


PORTRAIT  OF  A YOUNG  MAN 

LONDON,  NATIONAL  GALLERY,  No.  626 

The  Portrait  of  a Young  Man  in  a Red  Cap  has 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  standard  example  of 
Botticelli’s  work  at  his  best  and  most  mature  mo- 
ment. Yet  it  is  not  thirty  years  since  Dr.  Richter  first 
suggested  that  it  might  be  by  Botticelli,  and  less  than  fifteen 
since  the  National  Gallery  first  allowed  it  to  be  his . Before 
that,  it  passed  under  the  greater  name  of  Masaccio,  like  the 
majority  of  fifteenth-century  portraits  of  young  men  in 
caps,  and  it  was  bought  for  ^108,  3 s.,  under  that  name, 
for  the  National  Gallery  in  1859,  from  the  collection  of 
Lord  Northwich. 

An  attribution  to  Masaccio  is  not  surprising  when  it  is  re- 
membered that  the  different  styles  represented  on  the  walls 
of  the  Brancacci  Chapel  were  all  somewhat  indiscrimin- 
ately associated  with  him.  That  chapel  was  in  Vasari’s 
eyes  the  school  of  all  succeeding  Florentine  artists,  where 
even  Leonardo  and  Michelangelo  learned  the  lesson  of 
breadth,  dignity,  and  realistic  grandeur.  These  are  the 
qualities  of  the  simple  head  in  this  picture,  as  they  are  those 
oiMars  in  the  adjacent  picture,  of  the  heads  inthe^<3^or<^- 
of  Santa  Maria  Novella,  and  of  sufficient  other  pictures 


X 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


to  make  the  conjectural  attribution  to  Botticelli  practically 
a certainty.  But  these  qualities  in  this  head,  and  the  men- 
tion of  the  Brancacci  Chapel,  call  up  a feeling  of  much 
surprise  that  the  commission  to  complete  the  frescoes  in 
that  chapel  which  were  left  unfinished  at  Masaccio’s  early 
death  was  given  to  Botticelli’s  pupil,  Filippino,  and  not 
to  the  master  himself.  After  Botticelli’s  achievements  in 
Rome  some  such  disorder  and  wantonness  as  Vasari  lays 
to  his  charge  must  have  been  the  reason  why  he  was  passed 
over. 

The  portrait  is  grandly  and  squarely  set  within  its  frame. 
The  head  is  blocked  out  with  the  utmost  simplicity.  There 
is  no  elaborate  modelling,  but  the  structure  is  represented 
by  the  firmness  of  the  contours  and  the  precision  with 
which  the  different  parts  and  planes  are  interrelated.  The 
design  is  so  free  from  any  decorative  excrescence  that  it 
almost  seems  to  be  bare  ; but  in  reality  its  restraint  is  the 
result  of  the  most  elaborate  care.  The  colour  is  cool  and 
sober,  in  keeping  with  the  design  ; even  the  bright  red 
hat  is  not  rich  or  hot.  This  restraint  of  colour  and  design 
— far  from  either  the  uneasy  animation  of  the  Uffizi  por- 
trait (Plate  II.)  or  the  exaggerated  restlessness  of  later 
school  works  (Plate  xxiv.) — is  the  strongest  and  most 
effective  setting  to  the  wealth  of  subtle  character  which 
Botticelli  saw  and  represented  in  the  features  of  this  face. 


s 


4 


XII 


MARS  AND  VENUS 

LONDON,  NATIONAL  GALLERY,  No.  915 

A PICTURESQUE  interpretation  has  been  put  upon 
the  subject  of  the  Mars  and  V enus  by  Dr.  J.  P. 
Richter.  It  connects  the  picture  with  an  inci- 
dent in  the  history  of  the  Medici  which  became  romance 
almost  as  soon  as  it  was  enacted.  Giuliano,  the  brother  of 
Lorenzo  the  Magnificent,  was  the  victor  in  the  tourna- 
ment of  i475,which,  though  an  annual  affair,  was  no  doubt 
conducted  with  special  elaborateness  on  this  occasion. 
Giuliano  wore  the  favour,  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
game,  of  the  young  Simonetta  Cattaneo,  the  wife  of 
Marco  Vespucci.  So  far  the  incident  contains  no  very 
remarkable  features.  But  in  less  than  a year  Simonetta 
fell  ill  and  died,  and  scarcely  two  years  later  Giuliano  was 
murdered.  Poetry,  in  the  form  of  the  young  Politian,  be- 
came busy.  He  had  not  finished  his  stanzas  in  celebration 
of  the  jousts  when  he  was  compelled  to  write  elegies  upon 
their  heroine.  It  is  as  an  illustration  to  the  poem  on  the 
jousts  that  Dr.  Richter  explains  the  picture,  for  in  it 
Giuliano  has  a dream,  and  a lady  (Simonetta)  appears  to 
him  as  Pallas  calling  him  to  glory,  until  a goddess  arrives, 
divests  her  of  her  armour,  and  leaves  her  clothed  in  white. 

Y 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 

Dr.  Richter  supposes  this  picture  to  be  a synopsis  of  the 
poem,  and,  while  he  allows  that  the  male  figure  is  not  a 
portrait  of  Giuliano,  he  finds  in  the  female  the  only  re- 
presentation of  Simonetta. 

Of  course  the  picture  does  not  bear  this  interpreta- 
tion. Ignorant  apparently  of  the  Triton’s  conch.  Dr. 
Richter  ridicules  the  idea  that  the  little  satyr  is  trying  to 
rouse  the  sleeper  by  means  of ‘a  shell  with  its  murmuring 
sound.’  If  Botticelli  had  a poem  in  view,  surely  that  poem 
would  explain  the  hornet’s  nest  above  the  head  of  the 
man,  and  it  is  strange  to  find  the  cuirass  of  which  Pallas 
has  been  divested  lying  under  the  dreamer  and  not  by 
her  side.  If  the  picture  did  not  fail  to  support  this  inter- 
pretation it  would  be  necessary  to  date  it,  as  does  Dr. 
Richter,  before  1476.  But  unless,  as  Vasari  seems  to 
think,  all  Botticelli’s  successful  pictures  were  painted 
before  he  went  to  Rome,  everything  in  this  picture  points 
to  a date  so  much  posterior  to  1475  that  it  cannot  be 
conceived  to  illustrate  this  incident.  As  for  the  fancied 
portrait  of  Simonetta,  there  is  no  ground  whatever  for 
supposing  that  if  the  man  is  ideal,  this  figure,  which  recurs 
elsewhere  alone  as  Venus,  is  meant  to  possess  the  features 
of  a real  person. 

The  picture,  then,  must  be  accepted  as  simply  repre- 
senting Mars  and  Venus,  a subject  often  chosen  in  decora- 
tive panels  such  as  the  size  of  this  shows  it  to  be.  In  date, 
Mr.  Horne  would  place  it  close  to  the  Bardi  altarpiece  of 
1484  upon  the  evidence  of  ‘ the  quality  and  accent  of  its 
draughtsmanship.’  If  this  is  right — and  almost  the  whole 


MARS  AND  VENUS 


of  Mr.  Horne’s  chronology  depends  upon  it — Botticelli’s 
return  to  Florence  from  Rome  was  marked  by  a revival 
of  the  sanity,  strength,  and  decorative  restraint  which  he 
had  shown  in  his  Adoration^  together  with  an  enlarged 
sense  of  composition  which  he  may  have  gained  in  Rome, 
though  he  failed  to  exhibit  it  in  the  Sistine  frescoes. 
At  any  rate,  whenever  it  was  executed,  this  picture  is 
Botticelli’s  masterpiece  of  intentional  linear  decoration, 
while  the  drapery  of  the  Venus  and  the  drawing  of  the 
Mars  show  his  highest  power  of  selection  and  representa- 
tion. Maturer  than  the  Springs  less  mannered  than  the 
Birth  of  Venus ^ this  picture  is  the  touchstone  of  his  cap- 
acities in  designing  few  figures  on  a large  scale  and  with 
simple  colouring,  as  the  Adoration  and  the  Calumny  are 
the  finest  examples  of  his  more  richly  coloured  multitudes 
in  miniature. 


XIII 


GIOVANNA  TORNABUONI  WITH 
VENUS  AND  THE  GRACES 

PARIS,  LOUVRE,  No.  1297 

The  two  frescoes  at  the  Louvre,  sometimes  called 
‘The  Frescoes  of  the  Villa  Lemmi,’  from  the 
name  of  the  villa  near  Florence  whence  they 
were  removed  to  Paris,  were  discovered  in  1873.  There 
is  no  record  of  them  in  any  author,  but  they  were  at  once 
recognised  as  the  work  of  Botticelli,  and  the  principal 
figures  can  be  identified  as  the  portraits  of  Lorenzo  Tor- 
nabuoni  and  his  wife  Giovanna,  the  sometime  owners  of 
the  villa.  The  two  frescoes,  with  at  least  one  other,  formed 
the  decoration  of  a room  on  the  first  floor  of  the  villa,  and 
the  plinth  and  pilasters  in  the  foreground  of  each  show 
that  they  were  intended  to  represent  a real  opening  from 
the  room  into  the  world  outside. 

Lorenzo  and  Giovanna  Tornabuoni  were  married  in 
i486.  The  Tornabuoni  were  a noble  family,  enjoying 
the  special  patronage  of  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent.  Both 
husband  and  wife  were  celebrated  for  their  beauty  and  for 
every  virtue.  But  they  were  ill  fated.  Giovanna  died  two 
years  after  she  was  married,  and  some  ten  years  later 
z 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


Lorenzo  was  put  to  death  by  the  party  of  Savonarola  on 
the  charge  of  conspiring  to  restore  the  exiled  son  of 
Lorenzo  the  Magnificent. 

The  frescoes  by  Ghirlandaio  in  Santa  Maria  Novella 
represent  Lorenzo  and  Giovanna  as  characters  in  holy 
story.  Botticelli  surrounds  them  in  their  own  villa  with 
allegory.  Lorenzo  as  the  learned  pupil  of  Politian  is  being 
led  by  a figure,  which  probably  represents  Grammar,  into 
the  circle  of  the  Seven  Arts.  Giovanna,  gazing  upwards, 
holds  out  a cloth  into  which  Venus  appears  to  drop 
flowers  as  she  approaches  with  her  accompanying  Graces. 
One  of  the  frescoes  is  somewhat  severe,  as  befits  a solemn 
imagery,  while  the  other  is  gay  with  rounded,  laugh- 
ing lines.  But  in  both  the  prominent  figures  are  the  two 
portraits,  which  stand,  strong  and  dignified,  away  from 
the  allegorical  groups. 

Of  course  the  coverings  of  whitewash  and  removal 
from  the  walls  have  brought  these  figures  almost  into  ruin. 
So  much  of  them,  also,  was  painted  in  tempera  after  the 
plaster  had  dried,  that  even  less  remains  than  would  have 
been  the  case  had  they  been  completed  in  true  fresco. 
There  may  well  be,  besides,  no  little  of  assistants’ handwork 
in  their  execution.  But  even  so  they  are  among  the  most 
attractive  remains  of  Botticelli’s  work ; the  Lorenzo  for 
its  cunning  grouping  of  archaistic  figures,  the  Giovanna 
for  its  frolicsome  colour  and  movement,  and  both  for  the 
masterly  dignity  of  the  portrait  figures  and  the  broad 
treatment  of  their  heads.  In  the  fresco  of  Giovanna  it  is 
necessary  to  note  well  the  restrained  lines  of  the  soberly 


GIOVANNA  TORNABUONI 


clad  figure,  the  long  subtle  sweep  of  the  dress,  the 
arms,  the  neck,  and  her  steady  posture,  and  to  contrast 
them  with  the  uneasy  and  bustling  movements  and  drap- 
eries of  the  Graces  and  Venus,  which  are  the  character- 
istics more  usually  associated  with  the  idea  of  Botticelli. 


H i tM,! 

Of  1H£ 

ij'^iveRSiTY  or 


" "■  - ‘■-if/ “ 


XIV 


PORTRAIT  OF  A LADY 

FLORENCE,  PITTI 

The  portrait  of  a woman  in  profile  in  the  Pitti 
Palace,  sometimes  identified  with  a portrait  of 
Simonetta  Vespucci  which  Vasari  believed  Botti- 
celli to  have  painted,  has  been  cast  from  the  list  of 
Botticelli’s  works  by  almost  all  critics  of  authority.  They 
appear  to  be  influenced  almost  entirely  by  their  personal 
taste,  which  is  offended  by  the  fancied  ugliness  of  the 
picture.  But  even  Mr.  Horne,  who  discerns  its  beauty, 
refuses  to  accept  the  authenticity  of  the  work,  although 
he  recognises  as  a certainty  that  it  belongs  to  the  circle  of 
the  master. 

Yet  the  picture  bears  numerous  signs  of  authenticity. 
It  is  an  act  of  daring  in  itself,  such  as  is  not  to  be  expected 
from  a pupil,  least  of  all  from  the  pupils  of  Botticelli,  to 
represent  a woman  who  is  not  beautiful,  in  the  conven- 
tional sense,  in  the  simplest  and  plainest  of  garments  and 
against  the  severest  of  backgrounds.  There  are  numerous 
portraits  which  show  how  the  circle  of  Botticelli  decked 
out  the  head  with  frills  and  jewels  and  extravagances 
of  every  type,  distorted  the  features  into  conventional 
grimaces,  and  covered  the  painting  with  gaudiness  of 

2 A 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


colour.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  nothing  extraneous  is 
introduced.  The  painter  trusts  entirely  to  the  subtle 
characterisation  of  the  face  and  to  the  still  subtler  beauty 
of  sober  colouring  and  of  strong  and  simple  lines  and  rare 
restraint  of  ornament.  How  much  care  has  been  ex- 
pended on  the  precise  tracing  of  the  lines  appears  from 
the  ‘ pentimenti,’  the  corrections,  with  which  parts  of  the 
outline  are  surrounded. 

That  the  painter  who  saw  this  beauty  and  troubled  to 
reproduce  it  with  such  care  was  Botticelli  himself  should 
not  appear  surprising  after  close  consideration  of  his  other 
pictures.  The  portrait  has  not  the  bold  play  of  structure 
possessed  by  the  Man  in  the  Red  Cap  (Plate  xi.).  Such 
forcible  modelling  is  not  universal  in  Botticelli’s  work,  and 
here  it  would  ill  have  suited  the  subject.  But  the  careful  and 
restrained  design  is  common  to  both  pictures.  The  long 
flat  lines  are  very  close  to  those  in  the  figure  of  Giovanna 
Tornabuoni,  even  the  colours  of  the  dresses  are  similar, 
and  there  is  in  each  an  ornament  around  the  neck  serving 
precisely  the  same  purpose.  The  arms  recall  Giovanna’s, 
though  the  attitude  is  not  the  same.  But  the  attitude  is 
all  but  identical  with  that  which  Botticelli  gives  to  himself 
in  his  own  portrait  in  the  Adoration  (Plate  vi.),and  there, 
too,  the  hands  are  hidden  and  the  dress  is  heavy  and 
brown. 

These  are  small  indications  which  might  be  indefin- 
itely extended  by  an  analysis  of  the  drapery,  the  hair, 
and  the  carefully  painted,  hard  background  with  its  in- 
cised lines ; but  they  are  all  such  characteristics  as  might 


PORTRAIT  OF  A LADY 


be  caught  by  a pupil.  The  more  important  indications 
of  the  authorship  are  the  strength  and  precision  of  the  con- 
tour, which  as  a rule  are  accepted  as  proof  of  the  master’s 
hand,  and  the  general  beauty  of  the  design.  Exactly  as 
in  the  Mars  and  V enus^  the  definite  contour  makes  a 
beautiful  and  careful  pattern.  The  curves  are  consciously 
contrasted  with  straight  lines  and  the  masses  are  deliber- 
ately composed  in  broad  and  simple  fields.  The  result  is 
an  exquisite  plainness,  most  characteristic  of  Botticelli’s 
strength. 


/ 


/ 


XV 

THE  BIRTH  OF  VENUS 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  39 

The  history  of  the  Birth  of  V enus  is  told  under  the 
head  of  the  Spring  (Plate  v.).  When  the  two 
pictures  were  brought  to  the  Uffizi  the  Birth 
obtained  immediate  exhibition,  and  it  remained  in  that 
Gallery  when  the  Spring  transferred  to  the  Academy. 
This  was  not  the  first  time  that  they  were  divided,  for  in 
1598  they  were  in  different  rooms  in  the  Grand  Duke’s 
villa  at  Gastello,  and  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  they 
were  originally  designed  for  the  same  room.  The  dimen- 
sions do  not  correspond,  and  while  the  Spring  is  painted 
on  panel  the  Birth  of  F enus  is  on  canvas. 

Unlike  the  Springs  the  Birth  of  Venus  has  an  im- 
mediately intelligible  subject.  The  winds,  in  whom  it 
is  impossible  not  to  recognise  the  Zephyr  and  the  figure 
called  the  Spring  in  the  other  picture,  waft  Venus  on  her 
shell  to  land.  One  attendant  receives  her.  Vasari’s  ac- 
curacy of  description  may  be  judged  from  his  mention  of 
the  ‘Amori’  who  accompanied  Venus  in  this  picture. 

2 B 


( 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


The  subject  may  be  traced  to  a poem  by  Poliziano;  the 
only  matter  of  doubt  being  the  exact  affiliation  of  the 
attitude  of  Venus  to  the  poem  or  to  such  a representa- 
tion of  the  ‘ Medici’  Venus  or  its  type  as  Botticelli  may 
have  known. 

Mr.  Horne’s  detailed  examination  of  the  picture  leads 
him  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  painted  after  Botticelli’s 
return  from  Rome  and  considerably  later  than  the  Spring. 
Exception  must  be  taken  to  the  argument  that  the  tilt 
of  Venus’s  body,  which  is  intended  to  give  a sense  of 
forward  motion,  is  a sign  of  comparatively  late  work,  for 
the  tilt  is  here  hardly  evident  in  comparison  with  later 
works  and  is  almost  as  noticeable,  and  has  the  same  inten- 
tion, in  at  least  one  of  the  Graces  and  in  the  Venus  of  the 
Spring.  Nor  can  the  gilding  be  used  as  an  argument, 
since  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  Spring  showed  originally 
far  more  gold  than  it  does  now. 

The  condition  of  the  picture  is  good.  The  face  of 
Venus  seems  to  have  suffered  considerably  from  over- 
cleaning. Her  right  arm  has  been  repainted,  as  Mr. 
Horne  notes.  The  same  writer  finds  signs  of  the  work 
of  assistants  in  some  of  the  drapery.  The  whole  figure 
of  the  attendant  in  which  these  signs  occur  and  her  pose 
are  inferior  in  conception  and  execution  to  the  rest.  The 
cadaverous  colour  of  the  picture  which  Walter  Pater  enu- 
merated as  one  of  the  characteristics  of  Botticelli’s  art,  is 
due  to  the  deterioration  of  the  paint. 

The  Birth  of  Venus  ranked  as  one  of  the  pictures 
of  ‘ nude  women  ’ for  which  Botticelli  became  famous. 


BIRTH  OF  VENUS 


Copies  of  the  central  figure,  of  contemporary  date,  exist, 
but  none  are  due  to  Botticelli’s  hand,  and  if  this  innocent 
conception  of  nudity  had  been  followed  by  other  artists 
Savonarola’s  bonfires  might  have  lost  some  of  their 
material. 


UBRARt 

or  ^HE 

WHWERSn  ‘ 


1 


■V: 


^':h 


XVI 


CALUMNY 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI 

VASARI  speaks  of  Botticelli  as  engaged  upon  a com- 
mentary on  Dante.  He  means  thereby  a series 
of  illustrations,  and  the  literalness  to  the  text 
which  was  then  demanded  of  illustration  is  almost  tanta- 
mount to  commentary.  In  the  Calumny  he  comments 
upon  a passage  of  Lucian,  retranslating  into  the  language 
of  the  eye  the  description  given  by  the  author  of  a picture 
by  Apelles.  This  description  was  made  generally  known 
to  the  public  by  a free  rendering  contained  in  the  book 
De  Pictura  by  Leon  Battista  Alberti.  The  passage  was 
illustrated  by  many  painters,  and,  with  the  exception  of 
one  small  detail,  is  closely  followed  by  Botticelli,  even 
where,  as  in  the  description  of  Calumny  and  Remorse, 
the  translator  wanders  far  from  the  original. 

Apelles  is  said  to  have  painted  this  subject  to  cele- 
brate his  victory  over  a slander  which  was  brought  against 
him  at  the  Court  of  Ptolemy  Philopater.  On  the  extreme 
right  sits  the  nameless  judge.  Ignorance  and  Suspicion 
stand  by  him.  His  enormous  ears  are  mentioned  by 
Lucian  and  Alberti,  but  neither  of  these  authors  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  idea  that  Ignorance  and  Suspicion  are 

2 c 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


stretching  his  ears  wide  to  welcome  the  slander.  Calumny 
approaches  his  throne  with  a torch  in  one  hand ; with 
the  other  she  drags  a man  who  lifts  his  hands  in  an  appeal 
to  the  gods  for  mercy.  The  pale,  ragged  wretch  who 
precedes  Calumny  is  Envy ; the  two  women  engaged  in 
decking  her  headdress  are  Treachery  and  Deceit.  Away 
from  these  figures,  on  the  left  side  of  the  picture,  stand 
Remorse,  clad  in  rags,  and  the  modest  figure  of  Truth. 

The  action  takes  place  in  a large,  open  court.  The 
architecture  is  enriched  with  every  kind  of  sculptured 
device  and  is  covered  with  gold.  No  landscape  could 
do  aught  to  equal  this  luxuriance,  and  therefore  Botticelli 
introduces  through  an  opening  a vista  of  the  sea.  The 
painting  of  the  picture  is  rich  and  careful  as  a miniature, 
the  colouring  brilliant.  It  is  to  such  an  extent  a feast 
of  fancy  and  detail  that  the  mind  asks  for  no  explanation 
of  the  subject  nor  feels  the  lack  of  concentrated  drama 
in  this  simple  narrative. 

The  care  in  the  drawing  both  of  the  chief  figures 
and  the  most  minute  accessory,  the  absence  of  mannered 
faces,  and  the  comparative  restraint  of  the  drapery  and 
the  poses  make  it  impossible  to  place  the  picture  as  late 
in  the  series  of  Botticelli’s  works  as  does  Mr.  Horne. 
‘ Truth  ’ is  the  own  sister  to  ‘ Venus  ’ and,  if  anything, 
less  mannered.  Certainly  there  is  violent  action,  but  it 
is  far  from  taking  the  exaggerated  and  ugly  form  which 
belongs  to  such  pictures  as  the  San  Zenobio  series,  the 
Lucretia^  or  the  Virginia,  The  Nativity  shows  Mr. 
Horne  to  be  right  in  placing  these  at  the  end  of  Botti- 


CALUMNY 


celli’s  career.  But  in  the  Calumny  there  is  even  less 
violence  and  ugliness,  less  of  the  body  thrown  forward 
from  the  hips,  than  in  the  Sistine  frescoes.  It  would 
seem  that  Mr.  Horne  stretches  his  point  in  order  to  arrive 
at  a late  date  for  the  Dante  drawings,  which  have  many 
characteristics  in  common  with  the  Calumny, 

The  picture  is  admirably  preserved.  It  has  suffered  little 
since  Vasari  saw  it  in  the  collection  of  Fabio  Segni  and 
compared  it  with  the  Adoration  of  the  Uffizi.  Probably 
Fabio  inherited  it  from  his  father,  Antonio,  who  was 
known  to  Vasari  as  a friend  and  patron  to  Leonardo. 


XVII 


PALLAS  AND  THE  CENTAUR 

FLORENCE,  PITTI  PALACE  (ROYAL  APARTMENTS) 

The  picture  of  Pallas  and  the  Centaur  is  the  latest 
among  the  discoveries  of  Botticelli’s  pictures.  It 
only  became  known  to  this  generation  in  1895 
when  Mr.  William  Spence  found  it  in  a corridor  of  the 
Royal  Apartments  of  the  Pitti  Palace ; since  that  date  it 
has  been  cleaned  and  considerably  restored  and  is  now 
adequately  hung  in  one  of  the  state  chambers.  But  it  can 
scarcely  be  described  as  quite  unknown  until  1895,  for 
it  was  hung  in  the  gallery  of  the  Pitti  Palace  nearly  sixty 
years  before,  and  it  was  then  engraved. 

The  subject  can  be  identified  with  the  description  of 
a picture  belonging  to  Lorenzo  di  Pierfrancesco  Medici, 
and  after  his  death  to  his  nephew,  Giovanni  delle  Bande 
Nere.  Giovanni  seems  to  have  taken  it  to  the  villa  at 
Gastello  which  had  also  belonged  to  his  uncle,  and  there 
it  found  company  in  the  Birth  of  Venus  and  the  Spring, 
As  in  the  case  of  the  other  two  paintings  which  were 
once  in  the  villa  at  Gastello,  the  Pallas  has  Seen  supposed 
to  have  been  painted  for  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent.  Botti- 
celli is  recorded  by  Vasari  to  have  painted  for  him  a figure 
of  Pallas  above  flaming  branches,  and  in  the  sale  list  of 


2 D 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


Lorenzo’s  goods  this  picture  is  also  ascribed  to  Botticelli. 
Possibly  there  is  a confusion  here  with  the  standard  with 
this  device  which  Verocchio  painted  for  the  famous  tour- 
ney of  Giuliano,  the  brother  of  Lorenzo ; but,  if  not,  Botti- 
celli painted  two  pictures  of  Pallas,  for  the  one  now  existing 
is  certainly  not  to  be  identified  with  the  picture  once  in 
the  collection  of  Lorenzo. 

This  picture  is  an  allegory  which  is  closely  connected 
with  the  Medici.  No  doubt  the  figure  of  Pallas  has  some 
allusion  to  the  device  chosen  by  Giuliano,  though  the 
branches  of  olive  are  without  their  flames  and  Pallas  is 
here  represented  in  the  robes  of  peace,  without  her  Medusa- 
shield.  The  interlaced  diamond-pointed  rings  upon  her 
dress  form  one  of  the  devices  used  by  Cosimo  and  Lorenzo 
de’  Medici.  The  most  plausible  interpretation  of  the 
subject  is  that  it  represents  the  wisdom  and  strength  of 
the  Medici  subduing  the  lawless  passions  of  their  enemies. 

The  rich  repertory  of  Botticellian  designs,  the  painted 
sculptures  in  the  Calumny^  contains  a version  of  this  sub- 
ject. Hence  it  is  possible  to  conclude  that  it  is  borrowed 
from  some  antique  gem  or  relief.  Yet,  except  that  the 
figures  are  ample  enough  to  fill  the  space,  there  is  not 
much  that  is  classic  in  the  picture.  It  is  loosely  com- 
posed and  the  weakness  of  the  posture  of  Pallas  deprives 
the  picture  of  dignity.  Her  lack  of  equilibrium  and  her 
extravagant  drapery  are  in  marked  contrast  to  the  more 
definite  contours  and  more  precise  pattern  of  the  Centaur, 
as  her  impassive  and  expressionless  face  is  in  contrast  with 
his  appealing  look.  With  these  contradictions  of  style  it 


PALLAS  AND  THE  CENTAUR 


is  not  easy  to  assign  the  picture  to  its  place  in  Botticelli’s 
work,  nor  does  the  subdued  colour  help  ; but  Mr.  Horne 
is  probably  right  in  arguing  a late  date  from  the  peculi- 
arities in  the  figure  of  Pallas.  Not  a little  in  the  careful 
painting  of  the  rocks  and  the  Centaur,  and  even  the  faults 
of  Pallas,  recall  the  Dante  drawings.  Her  face  and  figure 
appear  to  have  been  freely  repainted. 

Botticelli  or  one  of  his  pupils  treated  this  subject  yet 
again,  for  a tapestry  belongs  to  the  Comte  de  Baudreuil 
in  which  Pallas  with  different  dress  and  accoutrements 
stands  in  the  same  attitude  as  in  the  picture.  A drawing 
for  this  figure  is  in  the  collection  of  the  Uffizi. 


r 


if* 


XVIII 


THE  MADONNA  OF  THE 
POMEGRANATE 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  1289 

OF  the  many  tondi  proceeding  from  Botticelli  or  his 
workshop,  Mr.  Horne  is  right  in  choosingtheA/^- 
don7ta  of  the  Pomegranate  as  the  only  one  which 
now  adequately  represents  the  spirit  of  Botticelli  in  its  ful- 
ness. With  one  exception  the  others  are  either  ill  preserved 
or  are  marked  by  faultiness  of  execution  which  suggests  more 
than  the  co-operation  of  pupils.  The  one  exception  is  the 
little  picture  in  the  Ambrosiana(Plate  xx.),  but  it  is  too 
slight  to  challenge  the  Pomegranate  as  a full  exhibition  of 
Botticelli’s  meaning  and  power. 

Unfortunately  nothing  whatever  is  known  of  the  date 
of  this  picture  or  the  commission  to  which  it  is  due.  Mr. 
Horne  conjecturally  dates  it  in  the  year  1487,  but  this  is 
only  an  inference  from  a general  theory  of  the  progress  of 
Botticelli’s  style.  Certainly  the  strength  and  amplitude 
of  the  forms  and  the  bold  simplicity  of  the  design  suggest 
the  period  of  Botticelli’s  full  maturity,  and  the  diminutive 
head  of  the  Madonna  together  with  the  widely  set  eyes  of 
one  of  the  angels  are  characteristic  of  the  mannerisms  which 
showed  themselves  very  fully  in  the  Sistine  frescoes,  but 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


occur  to  a less  extent  in  such  pictures  as  the  Birthof  Venus 
which  are  dated  by  internal  evidence  after  his  return  from 
Rome. 

Allowing  for  its  better  state  of  preservation  the  head  of 
the  Madonna  is,  both  in  its  features  and  its  inclination,  very 
close  to  that  of  Venus  in  the  Birth.  It  reappears  on  a 
smaller  scale  in  the  figure  of  Truth  in  the  Calumny.  The 
mind  is  tempted  to  dwell  on  this  similarity  and  on  such 
points  of  difference  as  are  observed ; but  such  analyses  are 
dangerous,  since  too  much  depends  upon  minute  accidents 
of  preservation  or  decay,  and  much  of  the  character  of  the 
expression  depends  on  the  angle  at  which  the  face  is  ob- 
served. Here,  the  head  of  the  Madonna  looks  at  its  best, 
and  is  structurally  the  soundest,  when  seen  from  the  right 
hand.  From  that  side,  too,  the  circle  of  angels  appears  to 
have  most  movement,  and  the  experiment  appears  most 
successful  of  suggesting  with  a few  large  figures  the  choir 
of  dancing  angels  who  surround  the  Madonna  in  other 
pictures. 

The  gold  which  once  poured  from  the  glory  above 
has  to  some  extent  been  rubbed  away,  and  the  colour  ap- 
pears flatter  and  darker  than  it  was  originally.  But  its 
strong  blues,  browns,  and  reds  are  harmonious  and  lum- 
inous and  in  every  way  more  characteristic  of  the  painter 
than  the  repainted  colours  in  the  adjacent  picture  of  the 
Magnificat. 


XIX 


THE  ANNUNCIATION 

FLORENCE,  UFFIZI,  No.  1316 

IT  has  long  been  known  that  Botticelli  painted  an  altar- 
piece  of  the  Annunciation  for  the  church  of  the 
Cestello  in  Florence,  when  from  1480  onwards  the 
monks  sought  contributions  from  the  pious  for  the  re- 
building of  their  ancient  cell.  Among  those  who  re- 
sponded by  building  their  own  chapels  was  one  Benedetto 
di  Ser  Giovanni  Guardi,  who,  in  1488-1490,  spent  fifty 
ducats  in  building  the  chapel  and  thirty  more  for  an  altar- 
piece  by  Botticelli. 

In  the  seventeenth  century  the  church  cf  the  Cestello 
was  transferred  to  the  cult  of  Santa  Maria  Maddelena 
de’  Pazzi  and  the  building  to  some  extent  transformed. 
Botticelli’s  altarpiece  is  mentioned  as  remaining  in  the 
Guardi  Chapel  at  any  rate  until  the  second  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  It  was  then  forced  to  make  way  for 
more  modern  decorations  and  was  lost  to  sight.  In  1 8 7 2 it 
reappeared  in  a little  chapel  in  the  middle  of  a field  which 
had  once  belonged  to  the  nuns  of  Santa  Maria  Maddelena 
de’  Pazzi.  The  picture  scarcely  needs  the  evidence  of 
its  original  frame,  marked  with  the  arms  of  the  donor,  to 
establish  its  identity. 

2 F 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


This  picture  has  been  much  cried  down.  Certainly  its 
colour  is  somewhat  crudeand  staring,  its  cold  background  of 
grey  stone  contrasts  uncomfortably  with  the  bright  patches 
of  colouring  in  the  floor  and  dresses.  Certainly,  too,  the 
woodenness  of  the  hands  and  the  unelastic  carriage  of  the 
heads,  and  the  want  of  grandeur  and  strength  in  the  drap- 
eries could  not  be  ascribed  with  any  plausibility  to  the 
execution  of  Botticelli  himself.  Some  pupil  no  doubt 
earned  part  of  the  thirty  ducats,  Botticelli  himself  supply- 
ing the  design  and  supervising  the  whole. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  the  drawing  is  unequal  to  the 
conception  and  the  design.  But  as  it  is  the  picture  has 
great  virtues.  As  Mr.  Horne  points  out,  the  Virgin  and 
the  Archangel  are  closely  modelled  on  those  of  Filippo 
Lippi’s  charming  altarpiece  in  San  Lorenzo.  But  the 
greater  simplicity  of  Botticelli’s  conception  makes  this  a 
more  impressive,  if  a less  pleasing,  picture.  The  two 
figures  absorb  the  whole  imagination,  and  there  is  no  need 
for  accessory  fancies  in  figure  or  in  background.  The 
Madonna  is  grave,  noble,  and  dignified,  less  naturalistic 
than  Filippo’s,  and  without  a touch  of  morbidity,  of  arch- 
ness, or  fantasy.  The  figure  of  the  Archangel  is  some- 
what tricked  out  with  unnecessary  draperies ; but  this 
is  the  only  mark  of  decorative  luxuriance  in  one  of  the 
most  direct  and  austere  of  Botticelli’s  designs.  The  lack 
of  pleasant  colouring  is  perhaps  due  to  a pupil’s  hand  in 
the  first  place,  but  some  consciousness  that  pleasant  colour 
was  not  required  for  the  communication  of  the  idea  may 
have  been  the  reason  why  Botticelli  allowed  the  pupil’s 


THE  ANNUNCIATION 


work  with  all  its  faults  to  pass  out  of  his  studio  as  his 
own. 

The  picture,  in  spite  of  its  adventures,  is  very  well 
preserved.  It  has  escaped  the  usual  fate  of  being  varnished, 
and  perhaps  for  this  reason  some  of  its  faults  are  more 
noticeable  than  they  might  otherwise  be. 


XX 


THE  VIRGIN  AND  CHILD 

MILAN,  AMBROSIANA,  ROOM  D,  No.  15 

ITS  admirable  preservation  would  alone  make  the  little 
tondo  of  the  Ambrosiana  noticeable  among  Botti- 
celli’s works.  Its  rich,  varied  colour  is  unspoilt  by 
cleaning  or  restoration,  and  no  thick  varnish  or  scouring 
of  surface  has  obliterated  the  sure  and  easy  touches  with 
which  the  master  has  thrown  his  conception  upon  the 

The  picture  is  very  slight.  Close  analysis  of  the  hand- 
ling discovers  such  dexterity  as  comes  very  near  to  trickery. 
The  proportions  of  the  figure  and  the  relations  in  size  of 
the  different  actors  are  careless.  The  composition  is  hap- 
hazard, the  various  motives  are  somewhat  confused  and 
meaningless,  and  all  appear  to  have  been  used  before  in 
other  contexts.  All  this  argues  a somewhat  late  date, 
though  the  air  of  untroubled  innocence,  the  serene 
divinity  of  the  picture,  seem  strange  among  Botticelli’s 
later  visions.  The  illustrations  to  Dante’s  Purgatory  and 
Paradise  provide  a parallel,  and  there,  too,  conscious  de- 
corativeness of  line  is  paramount. 

Nothing  is  known  of  the  history  of  this  charming 


2 G 


. > 


XXI 


THE  NATIVITY 

LONDON,  NATIONAL  GALLERY,  No.  1034 

The  Nativity  in  the  National  Gallery  is  the  only 
picture  by  Botticelli  which  is  signed  and  dated. 
The  date  is  very  obscurely  given  in  mistaken 
Greek  symbols,  but  it  can  only  be  1500;  the  name  is 
Alessandro  alone.  These  facts  are  imbedded  in  an  allusion, 
by  reference  to  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  to  the  suffer- 
ings of  Italy  and  the  approach  of  relief,  when  the  devil 
shall  be  chained  and  ‘we  shall  see  him  trodden  down  as 
in  this  picture.’ 

The  allusions  are  clearly  enough  to  the  prophecies  of 
Savonarola  and  the  troubles  which  followed  upon  the 
death  of  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent,  especially  the  much 
dreaded  progress  of  Csesar  Borgia  through  Italy.  Botti- 
celli certainly  believed  with  the  followers  of  Savonarola 
that  the  Church  was  shortly  to  be  reborn,  and  in  this 
picture  he  seems  to  be  representing  less  the  Nativity  of 
holy  story  than  the  promised  renewal.  The  two  figures 
on  the  right  of  the  manger  are  probably  the  shepherds, 
and  the  three  to  the  left  may  be  the  Magi,  represented 
without  any  of  their  accustomed  magnificence;  but  the 
other  figures  are  purely  symbolic  of  faith  and  joy  and 

2 H 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


glory,  and  of  the  devil  trodden  underfoot,  in  accordance 
with  the  inscription. 

The  date  upon  the  picture  fixes  precisely  the  moment 
when  Botticelli’s  imagination  and  representation  took  these 
forms.  It  was  towards  the  end  of  his  life  that  he  flung 
away  the  sustained  dignity  and  restraint  of  his  maturest 
works  and  threw  upon  his  canvas  the  red-hot  vehemence 
of  his  visions.  There  is  a unity  of  line  and  pattern  still, 
though  it  is  much  less  careful  than  it  was.  But  the  fig- 
ures sacrifice  structure  to  movement.  In  one  respect 
they  gain  by  the  change ; the  meaningless  contortions  of 
drapery  which  served  to  hide  imperfect  draughtsmanship 
in  female  figures  have  now  become,  upon  the  whole, 
powerful  indications  of  action.  / The  absence  of  decora- 
tive exuberance  shows  itself  in  me  figures  of  the  central 
group  as  positive  archaistic  severit)M  In  this  picture 
beauty  of  colour  and  of  movement  still  remain.  Else- 
where, in  pictures  of  the  period,  everything  is  sacrificed  to 
vehemence  of  action  and  intensity  of  meaning. 

A number  of  details  in  the  picture,  from  its  general 
composition  of  the  groups  to  the  drawing  of  the  trees  and 
the  character  of  the  rocks  and  path,  recall  the  illustrations 
to  Dante  and  serve  as  evidence  that  Botticelli’s  work  upon 
them  lasted  until  his  later  years. 

The  picture  is  on  the  whole  well  preserved.  Some 
of  its  gilt  and  pigment  has  been  rubbed  olL  and  its  once 
brilliant  colouring  has  darkened.  It  is  the  first  picture 
by  Botticelli  recorded  as  having  left  Italy.  W.  Y.  Ottley, 
the  famous  connoisseur,  bought  it  in  Rome  about  the 


THE  NATIVITY 


beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  failed  to  obtain 
a bid  above ^4 2 when  put  up  for  sale  in  i8ii,  and  was 
bought  in.  In  1837  it  reached  only  ^25,  4s.  Its  pur- 
chaser on  that  occasion  sold  it  in  1878  to  the  National 
Gallery  for  ^1500,  about  one-tenth  of  the  sum  paid  in 
1 9 1 1 for  one  of  the  series  of  pictures  with  the  story  of 
San  Zenobio,  which  shows  as  many  of  the  faults  of  Botti- 
celli’s decline  as  the  Nativity  shows  virtues. 


1 


:oj 


WORKS  WRONGLY  ASCRIBED 
TO  BOTTICELLI 

XXII 

MADONNA,  CHILD,  AND  ST.  JOHN 

CIRCLE  OF  BOTTICELLI.  LOUVRE,  No.  1296 

IT  is  not  possible  to  divine  what  may  lie  hidden  under 
the  thick  coats  of  varnish  upon  the  Madonna  of  the 
Louvre.  Certainly  there  is  an  attractive  picture  with 
a languorous  Madonna  leaning  her  head  upon  her  Child, 
against  a background  where  a few  trees  and  roses  stand  in 
strong  outline  against  the  sky.  The  picture  looks  best  from 
near ; the  farther  away  the  spectator  stands  the  more  heavy 
and  distorting  become  the  badly  modelled  shadows.  The 
varnish  prevents  the  solution  of  thequestionswhetherthese 
do  or  do  not  belong  to  the  original  paintingand  whether  be- 
neath it  there  lies  an  authentic  work  of  Botticelli,  repainted 
until  the  chief  characteristics  of  his  hand  are  lost,  or  only 
the  work  of  some  unidentified  and  imperfectly  skilled 
painter  who  caught  no  little  of  Botticelli’s  manner  without 
imitating  him  throughout. 

A repetition  of  the  theme  in  a picture  at  Dresden  is 
more  definitely  in  the  manner  of  Botticelli’s  school,  and 
proves  that,  whether  or  not  this  be  a work  by  the  master. 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


it  has  its  origin  in  his  vicinity.  The  type  of  the  Virgin^ 
though  unlike  that  given  by  Botticelli  to  the  Madonna  in 
any  picture  which  can  with  security  be  assigned  to  him, 
is  not  far  removed  from  that  of  the  central  Grace  in  the 
Springs  while  the  hollows  which  distort  the  face  in  this 
picture  are  only  exaggerations  of  the  extreme  modelling 
which  occurs  also  in  the  Spring,  But  with  the  exception 
of  the  hard  painting  of  the  accessories  this  is  the  only  de- 
finite point  of  contact  with  Botticelli.  The  remainder, 
whether  good,  as  in  the  background  or  in  the  dress  and 
the  veil — alike,  apparently,  the  result  of  repainting — 
or  bad,  as  in  the  hands  and  the  St.  yohn.^  shows  an  excel- 
lence or  an  imperfection  which  in  the  present  condition  of 
the  picture  do  not  appear  to  be  Botticelli’s. 


XXIII 


MADONNA,  CHILD,  ST.  JOHN 
BAPTIST  AND  AN  ANGEL 

SCHOOL  OF  BOTTICELLI.  NATIONAL  GALLERY,  No.  275 

Botticelli  to  most  English  people — and  England 
is  almost  the  country  of  Botticelli — means  the 
pretty  tondo  of  the  National  Gallery.  The  Virgin 
with  her  gently  rounded  young  face,  her  air  of  childish 
innocence,  her  slightly  parted  lips,  and  her  eyes  placed  far 
apart  in  an  attitude  of  somewhat  conscious  mystification, 
has  done  more  than  influence  art ; it  has  actually  created 
a fashion  of  beauty,  stereotyped  an  expression.  Its  colour, 
clear  and  delightful,  but  somewhat  grey  with  the  faded 
quality  which  Pater  noted  and  admired,  is  the  colour  which 
those  who  have  not  been  to  Florence  associate  with  Botti- 
celli. The  spirituality  of  the  Angels  and  their  morbid  list- 
lessness appeal  also  to  the  sentimentalist  who  imagines  that 
this  type  of  exaggeration  is  the  true  characteristic  of  the 
Quattrocento. 

Yet  the  picture  cannot  be  by  Botticelli  himself;  pos- 
sibly not  even  the  design  is  his.  The  detail  which  is  nearest 
to  his  work  is  in  the  Infant  Christy  His  attitude  and  the 
strong  outline  and  careful  if  rather  wooden  naturalism  of 
drawing  are  both  in  virtue  and  in  fault  akin  to  Botticelli’s 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


style.  But  the  woodenness  of  both  the  Virgin’s  and  the 
Infant’s  hands  and  the  excessive  fragility  and  bad  drawing  of 
the  angels,  the  mechanical  character  and  the  lack  of  feeling 
in  the  composition  accord  too  badly  with  the  general  style 
of  the  picture  to  be  anything  but  pupils’  work.  When 
Botticelli  showed  these  faults  he  did  not  combine  them 
with  such  sanity  as  is  expressed  in  the  general  design  and 
colour  of  the  Madonna  and  the  Infant.  Add  to  these  con- 
tradictions the  unfamiliarity  of  the  Virgin’s  features,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  not  a work  of  the 
master  but  a patchwork — very  delightful  perhaps,  but  still 
a patchwork — of  various  of  his  features  executed  by  a 
pupil’s  hand. 

A statement  on  the  frame  of  the  picture  shows  that  it 
was  once  the  property  of  Botticelli’s  younger  contemporary, 
the  architect  Giuliano  da  San  Gallo.  An  attempt  has  been 
made  by  Dr.  Richter  to  credit  him  with  the  painting  of 
the  picture  ; but  there  is  no  evidence  for  this.  Without 
such  an  authorship,  it  is  quite  sufEciently  interesting  that 
this  pupil’s  work  should  have  been  thought  worthy  of  pos- 
session by  a man  who  was  thoroughly  familiar  with,  and 
could  no  doubt  have  owned  himself,  authentic  works  of 
the  master. 


7. 


• J 


\ 


XXIV 


PORTRAIT  OF  A WOMAN 

CIRCLE  OF  BOTTICELLI.  BERLIN,  No.  io6a 

The  two  works  last  considered,  if  they  be  not  Botti- 
celli’s, are  at  any  rate  attractive.  The  Portrait  of 
a W Oman  at  Berlin  possesses  neither  the  quality 
of  beauty  nor  the  interest  of  authenticity.  Neither  its 
virtues,  if  it  has  any,  nor  its  vices  are  Botticelli’s.  He 
had  faults  enough,  but  they  are  not  those  of  this  picture. 
His  contour  was  hard,  but  it  was  not  weak  as  it  is  here ; 
his  drawing  was  not  always  certain,  but  it  was  not  mean- 
ingless as  in  this  picture ; he  had  a fondness  for  the  intri- 
cacies of  tresses  bound  up  in  their  own  coils,  but  he  did 
not  bind  them  together  with  such  distortions  nor  cause 
them  to  be  so  paramount  a feature  as  they  are  in  this 
picture. 

Nowhere  is  there  so  good  an  example  of  emptiness 
eked  out  with  mistaken  decorative  extravagances  as  there 
is  in  this  head.  The  face  does  not  hold  together  in  struc- 
ture ; a black  background  is  introduced  to  give  it  force. 
The  head  is  plain;  its  headdress  must  be  decorated  and 
elaborate.  The  head  does  not  fit  upon  the  neck;  a band 
must  hide  its  failings.  Even  the  bust  and  arms  must  be 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


accompanied  by  pearl-covered  hair  and  gaudy,  slashed 
dress  to  hide  their  ill-arranged  weakness. 

The  picture  is  an  epitome  of  all  the  vulgarities  of  the 
Quattrocento.  To  credit  it  with  the  name  of  Botticelli 
is  not  only  to  ignore  his  virtues  but  also  the  efforts  which 
led  him  into  his  own  excesses.  That  it  issued  from  his 
studio  is  conceivable ; but  if  this  is  so,  it  is  at  once  a con- 
demnation of  his  methods  and  a disproof  of  the  notion 
that  the  studios  of  the  Quattrocento  were  any  whit  more 
conscientious  than  those  of  the  succeeding  century  when 
the  so-called  decadence  had  set  in. 


XXV 


TOBIT  AND  THE  ARCHANGELS 

FRANCESCO  BOTTICINI.  FLORENCE,  ACADEMY 

ONCE  attributed  to  Botticelli,  the  picture  of  Tobit 
and  the  three  Archangels  is  now  generally  sup- 
posed to  be  the  work  of  his  occasional  imitator, 
F rancesco  Botticini,  a painter  of  the  fifteenth  century,  who, 
in  his  various  manifestations,  exhibits  the  mannerisms  of 
different  artists  of  his  day.  In  the  Palmieri  altarpiece  at 
the  National  Gallery,  also  ascribed  to  Botticelli,  he  comes 
nearer  to  his  manner.  Here  he  parodies  the  eccentricities 
the  decorated  school  which  dishonours  its  origin  in 
/Verocchio.  That  the  picture  could  ever  have  been  taken 
/ for  a work  by  Botticelli  only  shows  how  slowly  the  true 
; character  of  his  work  has  come  to  be  recognised. 

Certainly  Botticelli  in  his  early  work,  such  as  the 
yudith^  exhibits  a tendency  to  make  his  figures  trip  be- 
cause he  cannot  make  them  walk  with  life  or  dignity. 
Fortitude  herself  has  not  the  strength  to  sit  firmly  on  her 
throne.  Even  in  combines  his  figures  uneasily 

and  tends  to  over-decorate  their  drapery,  and  to  the  end 
he  is  forced  to  have  recourse  to  bulky  draperies  with  large 
piles  of  folds  in  order  to  mask  the  uncertainty  of  their 
limbs  and  the  want  of  strength  in  their  attitudes.  But 


2 M 


SANDRO  BOTTICELLI 


never  is  he  so  completely  a compound  of  fantastic  flour- 
ishes as  in  this  calligraphic  exercise  upon  a worn-out  theme. 
Botticini  has  nothing  to  say  that  has  not  been  said  a hun- 
dred times  before ; he  has  no  new  insight  into  either  the 
spiritual  conception  of  his  incident  or  the  forms  of  his 
characters.  Therefore  he  over-elaborates  their  exteriors 
with  adventitious  decoration  and  forces  into  excess  all  the 
superficial  and  decorative  characteristics  which  marred 
his  models.  This  is  not  primitive  exuberance  or  excess 
of  riotous  youth,  but  the  florid  rhetoric  of  a premature 


Text  printed  by  T.  and  A.  Constable,  Printers  to  His  Majesty,  Edinburgh 
Plates  engraved  and  printed  by  Henry  Stone  and  Son,  Ltd.,  Banbury 
Printed  in  Great  Britain 


I 


* 


t 


!■ 


A, 


/ 


.vh, 


V • Jt 


•l-  4 7 


